Gambling

[Relevant documents: Volume of memoranda published by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Gambling, (HC 827) and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 11th and 25th June and 2nd July.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Richard Caborn: When the Secretary of State announced the publication of "A safe bet for success" in March, she made it clear that we would continue to involve a wide cross-section of stakeholders in working up the detailed legislative proposals for the reform and modernisation of our gambling laws. Today's debate, which I am pleased to introduce, is an important part of that process, as is the inquiry being undertaken by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), to which I gave oral evidence earlier this week.
	We want the debate on these important reforms to be open and inclusive. The changes that we propose will have significant implications not only for the gambling industry and those who work in it—I remind the House that the industry employs more than 100,000 people—but for the three quarters of the adult population who enjoy gambling as one of their leisure pursuits, whether that be on the racecourse or in the bingo hall, the betting shop or the casino. That is reflected by the fact that we received almost 5,000 responses to our original consultation, and many more in response to "A safe bet for success".
	Constructive debate and dialogue continue, and I am well aware of the interest that many colleagues in the Chamber have in our proposals, so I was pleased that the House business managers could offer a slot today, in advance of the major Bill that will be needed if we are to implement most of the changes. The debate, like the discussions that we are having with the industry and other stakeholders, will help to inform our detailed policy development as we begin to draft the necessary legislation.
	Our overriding objective is to create an environment within which a well regulated British gambling industry can flourish and prosper, under sensible modern laws that deliver adequate protection for its customers and for society as a whole—an industry equipped to respond rapidly and effectively to the technological and customer-led developments in both the domestic and the global marketplace.
	As right hon. and hon. Members will know, three major Acts of Parliament, with a vast array of subsidiary orders and regulations, cover gambling. The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 covers betting in its various forms, the Gaming Act 1968 covers bingo, casinos and gaming machines, and the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 covers charitable lotteries and amusements. There is also a separate Act covering the national lottery.
	As hon. Members will know, the legislation was drafted at a time when gambling was seen as a rather shady activity that needed to be carefully controlled and managed. If we cast our minds back 30 or 40 years, we will remember that the social climate demanded that gambling should be frowned upon as a leisure pursuit— I come from a strong Methodist background, so I know all about that. The prevailing tone of the resultant statutes reflected that attitude, and the legislation of that day could be described by the phrase "grudging toleration".
	During our consultations it has been clearly shown that things have changed dramatically. Our gambling industry has earned itself a reputation for integrity and quality, and is respected world wide. Gambling is now seen as a legitimate mainstream leisure activity that gives pleasure and excitement to millions of our citizens. Many people relax by going to the races, the bingo club or the casino. Business opportunities are growing with the increased globalisation of gambling products, across regulatory jurisdictions, by electronic means such as the internet and interactive television.
	Our laws, however, have not kept pace with that activity. They are woefully out of date, hard to understand, inflexible and difficult to amend. Hon. Members know how many times we have had to introduce orders and other statutory instruments, which eat up valuable parliamentary time. The present law certainly does not cater for the electronic communications age. It is now an obvious one-liner to say that the e-revolution is here and affects all our lives—and that revolution has not bypassed the gambling industry. One of the reasons for the review was the fact that information can now be passed electronically.
	Businesses are saying that they are being held back, and opportunities for this country are slipping away. Consumers are beginning to look elsewhere for variety and choice, particularly in online gambling. Reform and modernisation of our system of regulation are long overdue.

Gareth Thomas: I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend's point about the need to regulate online gambling. May I highlight the issue raised by the BBC programme "Kenyon Confronts", which examined the problem of betting exchanges? People can place bets there, which allows people who have not passed the "fit and proper person" test to act as bookmakers. That threatens the integrity of our bookmaking industry. Will the regulation of online gambling be able to deal with that?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. As my hon. Friend knows, the new gambling commission—which I shall discuss in due course, and to which we will give considerable powers—will deal with the eventualities to which he refers.
	As we embrace the need for change and modernisation, we must not lose sight of the fact that gambling can harm some of our citizens. That is why, when the then Home Secretary announced the gambling review in 1999, he stated that, while seeking to relax some of the outdated controls, the Government's aims were that the industry should remain crime free, that players should know what to expect and not be exploited, and that children and vulnerable people should be protected. We attach the utmost importance to those aims, and I shall return to them shortly.
	The gambling review report—published in July 2001—was researched and written by the independent gambling review body, which was ably chaired by Sir Alan Budd. The review's remit was to consider the gambling industry today and how it may develop over the next 10 years, in order to update outmoded legislation. It was asked to evaluate gambling's social impact, weighing up the costs and benefits. The need to protect the young and vulnerable from exploitation, and to protect all gamblers from unfair practices, were key factors to be taken into account. Those issues were addressed in the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) refers.
	The scope for criminal infiltration is a very serious consideration, particularly given that, as I have said, current legislation was in part a reaction to infiltration of the industry by organised crime in the 1960s, under cover of what were then legitimate gambling businesses. The terms of reference also required the review body to consider the availability and effectiveness of treatment programmes for problem gambling, and to make recommendations for their future provision. It was also asked to look at the need for new, more streamlined approaches to the practical regulation of the industry.
	The review body was not asked to consider changes to the national lottery itself, but it was expected to consider and assess the impact on the lottery of any recommendations that it might make. In short, the review aimed to bring gambling legislation into the 21st century, while ensuring that gambling remains a transparent and fair activity, and that the vulnerable in society are properly protected from its downside effects.
	I have already explained that the existing laws no longer meet the needs and expectations of today's gambling industry and its customers. Advances in technology are not provided for within current legislation, and Britain is missing out on the opportunity to keep pace internationally. In some instances it is hard, in today's context, to fathom the reasons behind the rules, which are holding back legitimate business. Some regulations appear to defy common sense, although there were doubtless good reasons for their introduction at the time. However, do we really need regulations that prevent casinos from offering any form of live entertainment—not even a pianist or a string quartet, let alone Tom Jones or Shirley Bassey, who are probably of greater interest to people like the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and me—or which stop betting offices serving anything other than pre-packaged food? Why, for example, is it okay to visit a casino in Reading or Brighton, but not in Swindon or Worthing? What is the sense in obliging those of our citizens who wish to game on the internet to choose between gambling sites based and regulated in central America or the south Pacific, for example, while preventing the operation of such sites in the UK?
	These are by no means the only examples of regulations whose sell-by dates have passed. The relaxation of gambling laws worries many people, and we must respect and respond to those concerns. Like many hon. Members, we have received many letters from individuals who are worried about exposing some of our population, particularly children and vulnerable adults, to a more deregulated gambling regime. For example, my Department recently received a letter from a lady who was married to a compulsive gambler for many years. The husband managed to conquer his addiction, but unfortunately the marriage broke down during the process. Thankfully, they have got back together, but she is extremely concerned that loosening the restrictions may increase the risk of her husband's exposure to gambling, thereby causing him to slide back into his former habits. I am sure that many hon. Members have heard similar stories. These fears are real, and the House cannot and should not ignore them.
	The prevalence of problem gambling in this country is reckoned to be low by international standards—the figures were given to the Select Committee only this week—but that is no reason for complacency. I make it clear on the Government's behalf that we must ensure that deregulation and the relaxation of controls go hand in hand with effective measures to minimise harm. We must ensure that children do not develop gambling problems and take them into later life. Many of the proposals in "A safe bet for success" are geared to ensuring that children are properly protected—a point that applies particularly to gaming machines, from which the review body considers that children are most at risk. We did not agree with all of Sir Alan's recommendations about such machines. In our view, the evidence did not support a complete ban for children, but a clear distinction should be drawn between machines that children may continue to play, and those which they should not.
	Getting the balance right between freeing up regulation and ensuring that proper and proportionate safeguards are in place is a challenge, but I believe that this can be achieved, and that the proposals in "A safe bet for success" will enable us to do so. The key component in the new regulatory system will be the gambling commission. The creation of this new regulatory body will, for the first time, centralise responsibility for the licensing of all gambling operators. The commission will have a vital role in monitoring the conduct of gambling in this country, and in responding to developments, whether on its own account or through advice from Government.
	At the heart of the relationship between the commission and the industry that it will regulate must be an acknowledgement by operators that corporate social responsibility will be an integral feature of the way in which they run their businesses. My dialogue with industry representatives in the past six to nine months has left me in no doubt that they understand and accept that responsibility, which will attach to the additional opportunities offered to them. I have been particularly impressed by the way in which all sectors of the industry have embraced the review body's recommendation that an independent trust be established to fund research not only into the day-to-day issues of problem gambling, but into the equally important issue of why people get involved in such gambling—a problem that the Budd report highlights. However, nobody should be in any doubt that the Government and the gambling commission will monitor developments very closely, and that we will be ready to respond if standards are allowed to slip, or commitments are not honoured.
	I want to put one myth to bed. Several critics have said that our review was led by fiscal considerations and the prospect of significantly increased revenue from additional gambling activity. It was not. Although we asked the gambling review to take into account the implications for the current system of taxation, and the scope for its further development, that was not the main driver for reform. Although the changes may generate more revenue from gambling, our assessment is that such increased spending will mostly constitute money previously spent on other taxable leisure activities. Consequently, we do not expect any extra revenue from gambling or significant increases for the Government coffers.
	What will change? What are the likely impacts? The reforms outlined in "A safe bet for success" will have a profound impact on the gambling industry. Casinos are significant winners, with major deregulation affording substantial business opportunities and customer benefits. Bingo clubs will also enjoy greater freedom, with many restrictions removed following changes in the deregulation order that I laid before Parliament in March.
	The world of online gambling will, at last, be properly opened to British businesses, and the Government are committed to ensuring that our e-gaming services are as well regulated and enjoy the same reputation for fairness and transparency as the bricks-and-mortar gambling premises. Society lotteries will also do well out of the changes with higher stakes, sales and prize limits that allow them to raise more money for their good causes.
	I am pleased that we have already been able to implement some modest reforms, as we promised in "A safe bet for success". For example, we have already lifted restrictions that prevent customers in casinos from enjoying a drink while they are gaming. We have doubled the stake, sales and prize limits on society lotteries, as they requested. Orders will be laid before Parliament before the recess to increase bingo limits and allow live entertainment in casinos. An order has already been debated to allow betting shops to offer a more attractive range of refreshments, but not alcoholic drinks.
	All this should have a positive spin-off for our tourist industry, which we all want to return to its former glory. It was badly affected by last year's foot and mouth crisis and the events of 11 September in the United States. Anything that we can do to help it become a vibrant, major industry again is welcome. It would be good to think that we could attract to tourist destinations in this country punters who prefer to play in the large resort casinos, but currently do so abroad.
	We will allow UK casino operators to offer a broader and more attractive leisure experience in a well planned and pleasant environment. I am sure that that is welcome. Places such as Blackpool are making great strides to ascertain whether they can be first out of the starting blocks. I wish them well.
	As I said earlier, we did not accept all the review body's proposals, but we did not reject many. Out of the 176 recommendations, the Government rejected only nine. We decided that another 10 needed further substantive consideration. I am not surprised. The report has been acknowledged to be solid, well thought out and sensible. That is a testament to Sir Alan Budd's professionalism and that of other members of the review body. I want to put on record our appreciation of their work. It was a professional job, which enabled the Government to do their job much more easily. I hope that it will lead to good quality legislation.

Gareth Thomas: I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments. However, I ask him to keep under review the recommendation for the floor space devoted to table games in casinos to be 2,000 sq ft. Does he realise that there is much anxiety about that? Paul Bellringer of Gamcare suggested that the floor space should be 10,000 sq ft and that space of 2,000 sq ft would lead to many more casinos on the high street, perhaps threatening existing bookmakers and exacerbating problem gambling.

Richard Caborn: We are in the process of consulting, and we are prepared to consider such representations. As my hon. Friend knows, my officials have maintained a close dialogue with Gamcare and others who have genuine anxieties about deregulation. Gamcare's approach has been positive; it welcomed the Budd report. We are trying to work out a way in which to implement the recommendations.
	Of the nine recommendations that we rejected, the one that appeared to cause most concern was the recommendation that members' clubs should lose their entitlement to jackpot gaming machines. We received over 3,400 representations on that proposal. I would be surprised if any hon. Member had not written to me about the matter, and I have received strong representations from my city of Sheffield. I am sure that hon. Members have received letters on the subject. We listened to what people said and were persuaded of the harm that a ban would do. As an honorary member of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, I shall now expect to visit any club in the country free of charge.
	The Budd report may have reached the wrong conclusion about jackpot gaming machines, but it is important to consider its rationale on the matter. The review body was worried about children's access to the machines. We have had effective discussions with the industry and the clubs, and I thank hon. Members who have been involved in that. We have held constructive dialogue with them, and they accept the need to ensure that children do not have access to the machines. We are considering methods that will achieve that.
	We also rejected the recommendation that side betting should be permitted on national lottery results. I accept that there are conflicting views. We acknowledge that the available evidence on the possible impact is conflicting and, some would say, inconclusive. However, in the context of the other opportunities that are being offered to the commercial gambling sector, the Government were not willing to gamble, as it were, with the future income for good causes that flows from the national lottery.
	The reforms will not be cost free. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West asked about the way in which we will regulate them. The gambling commission will be expected to recover its costs fully through licence fees paid by operators. The same will apply to local authorities; under our proposals, they will assume responsibility for licensing all gambling premises. In "A safe bet for success", we provided some initial estimates of the likely cost of the new regulatory arrangements.
	Our initial estimate is that the arrangements will cost between £11.3 million and £17.7 million. That is a net increase on current regulatory costs of between £5.7 million and £12.1 million. Those estimates will be refined as we develop detailed proposals for the way in which licensing and regulation will work in practice. The Government are clear that any additional costs will be a small price to pay for the increased freedoms and opportunities that reform will bring.
	Where do we go from here? We will continue our dialogue with the industry and others in the coming months as we put more flesh on the bones of our proposals. We have had a good dialogue with those who have a vested interest and those who could be affected. As I said earlier, we aim to introduce a major gambling Bill as soon as parliamentary time permits. I hope that will happen in the 2003–04 Session.
	In the meantime, I look forward to hearing hon. Members' opinions in today's debate, which we view as an important part of the consultation process. It will enable us to introduce legislation that is fitting for the 21st century.

John Greenway: I welcome the opportunity to debate the Budd proposals for modernising Britain's gambling laws. However, I think that the House will agree that it is disappointing that this important issue is being debated on a Friday, when many Members are unable to be present due to constituency commitments. Were this debate to have been held between a Monday and a Thursday, I think that a considerable number of Members would have been present because, as the Minister said, there is great interest in the issue across Parliament.
	That said, the Conservative party welcomes the long overdue review of our gambling laws by Sir Alan Budd. It facilitates the reform of outdated gambling legislation and seeks to bring gambling even more into the mainstream of the leisure sector.
	The Government's response to the report, by and large, has been measured, and we agree with and support many of their conclusions. However, there remain a number of areas in which, on points of detail, reconsideration may be appropriate, and the debate today greatly aids that process. I welcome the Minister's comment that more discussion can take place because we hope that this will not be the last word prior to the Government introducing a draft Bill. If that happens in 2003–04 at the earliest, there is plenty of time for further consultation and reflection.
	In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the White Paper responses represent decisions of principle and policy. Those decisions, in turn, beg a great many more questions concerning the implementation of the proposals. I want to take the opportunity of this debate to outline what we see as some of the more important issues for the Government and the industry in the light of what the Government intend.
	We agree that the national lottery income stream for good causes should be safeguarded, subject to the lottery's continuing success in the longer term. The national lottery's ability to operate under an exclusive contract should continue for the foreseeable future, and ensuring continuity of that income stream for good causes remains vital. Of course, right hon. and hon. Members would expect me to say that as it was a Conservative Government who established the lottery in the first place.
	We believe that the performance of the National Lottery Commission has been unconvincing thus far. We are unimpressed by the reports of the reforms planned by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. We understand that the right hon. Lady is unwell and send her our good wishes for a speedy recovery so that we can hear more of what she plans for the commission and other matters. However, it seems relevant, given that this is a wide-ranging debate, at least to pose the question whether we need a separate regulator—a lottery commission—or whether the Government should be moving towards the lottery coming under the same regulatory supervision as the new gambling commission will provide.
	We agree that the creation of a new single regulator for all gambling is a good idea. However, the case for continuing to exclude the national lottery indefinitely is not entirely persuasive. We note the Government's White Paper commitment to review the issue, but suggest that it may need to be decided quickly so as to accommodate any change in the forthcoming Bill, even if the proposal is permissive. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, gambling deregulatory measures come before the House all too rarely in the form of primary legislation.
	We accept that the national lottery should continue to enjoy the exclusivity of a single licence, but we must also bear in mind the value and importance of society lotteries, which raise much needed funds for many national and local charities. Similar lotteries are run for the benefit of local football clubs—most professional league clubs have one—and many are facing financial crisis. The income stream from such lotteries has been seriously dented by the creation of the national lottery. That was anticipated when the lottery was established by the inclusion of charities. It was not originally intended to do so but charities were included during the legislative process as one of the good causes. Nevertheless, it was also envisaged that society lotteries would continue to exist. We need to be sure that the regulatory regime in which they operate is not unduly restrictive, or more than is necessary, to ensure the pre-eminence of the national lottery.
	The Budd recommendation that maximum stakes and prizes for society lotteries should be abolished met with huge resistance from Camelot. The Government's response to allow doubling of stakes and prizes makes sense. In fact, at the Lotteries Council conference—where the right hon. Gentleman was stuck on a train one day and I got stuck in traffic coming back the next day— I suggested that a doubling would be a sensible compromise. So we welcome the changes introduced by the statutory instrument that took effect last month, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as was evidenced by our passive response to the measure.
	The Government should consider whether they need to do more. The Lotteries Council is also pressing for roll-overs or accumulators to be permitted. It took me a while to work out what the effect would be, but I understand that that would involve only a proportion of prize money, there would be a limit on the number of lotteries over which the roll-over would operate and, consequently, the amount payable. Within those limits, such rollovers, which would be very useful to the society lotteries, would be unlikely to pose any threat to the national lottery. I hope that when the Minister has time and meets up with the Lotteries Council again next year, this can be examined further.
	Despite the White Paper's suggestion to the contrary, charity lotteries frequently return a bigger proportion of money to good causes than charities will ever receive from the national lottery. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) knows the work that Littlewoods does in promoting and supporting many of these lotteries. Should right hon. and hon. Members wish to have this information to prove my point that I am making, it is available.
	Whatever Ministers decide now, these issues will come up again in the future. There will be a need to keep these stakes and prize limits under further review. So we think that in the longer term, it could well make better sense to include both the national lottery and the society lotteries under the same regulatory umbrella, subject of course to the caveat that some of the smaller lotteries have local authority licensing. That would ensure a more even- handed approach, notwithstanding the general requirement to protect the national lottery's exclusive national licence. There is a precursor for this, because when the Government decided to move the legislative responsibility for gambling from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, some people wondered whether there would be a conflict between the national lottery, which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has the responsibility to promote, and other forms of gambling, but it has not worked out that way. The same could well be true of a single regulator.
	It would in my view be unforgivable if Parliament and the Government unfairly disadvantaged the future prospects of society lotteries and, as a consequence, damaged the fundraising activities of the many worthy charities that depend on society lotteries for their income. A single regulator would help facilitate an independent judgment on the right regulatory environment, and the gambling commission would be well placed to do that.
	As to the success of the commission more generally, much will depend on the quality of the new regulator and those appointed to the commission. They will need wide experience of a complex industry and it is important that they command confidence and respect not only within the industry but from the public. The commission will have a crucial role in shaping the new landscape post- deregulation, especially in the growth of harder gambling opportunities, casinos and the increased use of machines in dedicated premises. It is important that they make a good and certain start. I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister has considered establishing a shadow commission. That might help the Government and the industry facilitate and manage change with consistency and confidence. The commission would clearly have a major role in, for example, determining the suitability of applicants and their planned projects for new casinos. There is much work to be done in this area, as I will explain later.
	A shadow authority would have the time in advance to work with the Government and the industry to put in place the structures that the new process will require and give direction to the industry in the new gambling environment. The concept of a shadow authority has worked well for the financial services industry in the creation of the Financial Services Authority. We hope that Ofcom, which has been created as a shadow authority by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will also be a success. I hope that Ministers will consider whether a shadow gambling commission makes equal sense, so that we avoid the big bang of a new regulator coming in on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Stephen Ladyman: Far be it from me to agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but his idea is excellent. One of my concerns about framing the legislation is what needs to be in the Bill and what we can afford to leave to the commission. A shadow commission would allow us to decide what works in the commission's hands and what needs to be in the Bill.

John Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I think that it is already clear that we do not need to fall out with the Government on this matter—indeed, I hope that we can help them.
	The society lottery community is not the only part of the present gambling environment that is fearful that it will be put at a competitive disadvantage by deregulation in other sectors of gambling. For example, the horse racing industry is being offered little if no opportunity to widen the distribution of its product, yet racing and bookmaking face a number of competitive threats from the new betting opportunities in communities where previously the local betting shop was the main or only gambling outlet. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made that point in an intervention.
	Although the recent agreement between the betting industry and horse racing on a new five-year rights deal to settle their dispute over the horse racing levy is extremely welcome, racing and bookmakers are not in agreement about the places where off-course betting on horse races should be permitted. I hope that the new sense of partnership between racing and bookmakers will encourage bookmakers to maximise the proportion of turnover derived from betting on racing. Bookmakers are certainly disappointed that the Government have rejected the Budd recommendation to allow side betting on the outcome of the national lottery, especially as the lottery has permission to promote its own game, Hot Picks, which is side betting by any other name. The racing industry none the less agrees with the Minister and, on balance, so do we.
	The key point for bookmaking and racing is that unless the racing industry can be confident in the belief that the present structure and distribution of betting shops delivers the maximum possible return for racing from betting on horse races, it will continue to press for other retail outlets to be permitted to offer small stake, big win prize betting opportunities on a set number of events.
	One suspects that ministerial concerns about the impact on the national lottery of, for example, a Tote terminal in pubs is as important a consideration as the impact on betting shop viability. In that sense, the protection afforded to the lottery disadvantages both bookmakers and racing in a way that cannot be justified by any other argument. For example, there is little if any opportunity for repeat play and the immediate chasing of losses in the type of bet that I mentioned, about which the Budd review expressed concerns in recommending that the mix of gambling and alcohol should not be permitted. However, that argument is inconsistent with the agreement that alcohol should be allowed on the gaming floor. Indeed, I welcome what the Minister has done in bringing that about. People can already drink themselves silly while playing high-stake, high-prize machines in certain premises so, for that reason alone, we should continue to resist credit card payment in gaming machines.
	The racing and bookmaking sectors are equally concerned to ensure that the integrity of both the racing product and the operation of betting shops is beyond reproach. The Jockey Club has constantly expressed concern about the sport's vulnerability to criminal activity, and I commend its briefing document for this debate to the Minister and his officials.
	I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the highest standard of integrity is crucial. I assure him that that is appreciated by the racing industry. None the less, will he have regard to the concerns of bookmakers—who generally have confidence in the present system—that the introduction of firmer regulation of the betting industry, especially the proposed replacement of magistrate licensing with a new role for local authorities, will be fair and consistent?
	Racing's enthusiasm for early reform of the gambling laws, coupled with the anxieties of those in the betting industry about what that will mean for them, offer a further reason for the establishment of a shadow gambling commission, as it might aid progress and provide reassurance.
	The publication of the Budd report a year ago and its recommendations on gaming machines prompted widespread concern across the gaming industry that the Budd review body held a particularly negative view on gaming machines in premises that are not dedicated for gambling. The Minister has already pointed out that he has sensibly rejected the proposal to ban jackpot machines from clubs, and we strongly agree. One of the few benefits of opposition is that I was able to announce our position long before the Minister could make an announcement. I am not making a political point by saying that—it was obvious that the proposal was a non-starter, and we welcome the Minister's comments.
	We must ensure that children aged under 18 should not be permitted to play gaming machines. It would be sensible to ensure that the reformed legislation makes it a criminal offence to allow under-18s to play such machines. We agree with the Government's decision to reject the Budd proposal to allow local authorities to institute a blanket ban on gambling premises in a specified area, although the legacy of that recommendation has been to increase the anxiety and nervousness with which proprietors of premises in which gaming machines are situated view the proposal to strengthen the role of local authorities in licensing. Despite the rejection of the proposal, that nervousness is clear in various submissions to me.
	The recategorisation of gaming machines seems sensible and should end the confusion about which machines are permitted in various locations. I agree with the Minister that it must be clear which machines can and cannot be played by children. However, the proposals in the Government's response to Budd about gaming machines in pubs and the future of amusement-with-prize machines in seaside arcades require further thought.
	If the law is strengthened, as I have suggested and as I believe the Government intend, is it really necessary to insist that machines sited, for example, in public houses should be in separate areas? That would create serious administrative and logistic difficulties for pub landlords. Many licensed premises have an open-plan environment, especially those which encourage families and offer meals. Will the Minister explain why it is thought insufficient to rely on strong management, proper staff training and the successful prosecution of those who break the law? Furthermore, there would be clear signs on the machines stating "No under-18s to play". Indeed, Business in Sport and Leisure has carried out research that suggests that 92 per cent. of the public believe that the law currently forbids under-18s from playing because of existing signage to that effect.
	The Budd report recommended that a maximum of two machines should be permitted in pubs and other premises that have a liquor on-licence. The Government's response was that local authorities should have discretion to grant more permits. However, that is entirely arbitrary and takes no account of the fact that some public houses are significantly larger than others—in some cases the equivalent of three or four pubs are in the same building. The Minister will know that the trade in general thinks that licensed premises should be allowed up to four machines as of right, with further machines permitted on application. There is concern that limiting pubs to two machines could create serious administrative difficulty for local authorities and that about 12,000 licensed premises might have to reapply for permission for additional gaming machines. I hope that we can come to a sensible agreement on that point.
	There is huge relief that the Budd proposals to restrict low-stake, low-prize machines, such as those in seaside arcades, to cash prizes only have been rejected. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) led the campaign on that and, as he knows, he had Opposition support. Nevertheless, there is disappointment that the Government intend to reduce the current maximum stake on amusement-with-prize machines, recategorised as category D machines, to only 10p and the maximum prize to £5 or equivalent value.
	There is no doubt that we need more research on that matter—as we have constantly pointed out. However, we must not predetermine the outcome of that research. There appears to be no mechanism that will subject those minimum stakes and prizes to review in future. Will the Minister consider giving the gambling commission the requirement to undertake such a periodic review in the light of the outcome of the research?

John Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such machines could become uneconomic and that, in effect, they are among the more innocent forms of gambling?

John Greenway: Yes. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my next comment.
	It should be beyond argument that children must be discouraged from playing even amusement-with-prizes machines without supervision. However, for many families a visit to the amusement arcade is an integral part of their seaside experience—it certainly was for me and it did me no harm. Those arcades are also a vital part of the seaside local economy. Like the Minister, I came from a very strict background, where gambling was frowned on, yet we were allowed to play amusement and prize machines at Blackpool. With seaside tourism already under pressure, we must take care not to impose unjustified restrictions without clear evidence that harm is being done; otherwise, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, there will come a point where these machines become uneconomic and a valuable part of the seaside experience will be lost.
	The future of seaside tourism is an integral feature of another major Budd recommendation, which the Government have accepted: the removal of current restrictions on the location of casinos, giving rise to the opportunity to create Las Vegas-style casino resorts. However, we need to be clear in our minds as to what we mean by a casino or a resort casino. It should not mean wall-to-wall high-pay-out slot machines. It should mean the availability of gaming in a leisure mix. That is why the ability to enjoy live entertainment, a drink and a restaurant all within the same premises makes sense and will make the casino experience something that people look forward to, as an event that is out of the ordinary and not something that they would wish to partake of every day, or even every weekend.
	The popular game of bingo is inextricably linked to the deregulation process, because it provides the opportunity to include bingo in casinos. As the Minister knows, the industry is divided on the sense of that, as many smaller operators fear that it will lead to a decline in the number of stand-alone bingo clubs. We must listen carefully to those in the industry who have expressed a fear that over time the local bingo club might lose its original primary identity and be transformed into a casino dominated by gaming machines with unlimited stakes and prizes. What was once a soft gambling environment, where the housewife or pensioner could enjoy social company and a bit of fun at a limited cost, may be gradually transformed into a hard gambling environment, where the opportunity to lose money is unlimited. Players are not always conscious of the addictive effects of trading up and chasing losses. I shall discuss the consequences for increased problem gambling in a moment.
	Of course, it is quite likely that such a hard gambling environment will have little appeal to a great many people who enjoy bingo now, although, with bingo turnover profits already in decline, the order that the Minister is going to lay might begin to reverse that process; we hope so. Nevertheless, the temptation for bingo hall proprietors to maximise alternative income streams will prove hard to resist.
	A key question for the reform process is whether the new regulatory framework should at least provide the opportunity to protect bingo as a distinct form of soft gambling. Many in the industry believe that it should, while others believe and argue that we should leave it to the market. However, there is a real danger that the relaxation of planning and licensing could lead to bingo being used as the first step towards the establishment of an amusement arcade with amusement machines in, for example, retail outlets in resorts that cater for adults only. That would not be a bingo hall in the soft gambling environment; it would become a very hard gambling environment. However, it would have an adverse impact on bingo-only premises. We should have a mind to that.
	Although we are in general agreement with the Government's decision to deregulate the casino industry, we have real concerns that deregulation should not lead to proliferation and a consequent rise in problem gambling. Even the creation of, for example, a casino resort experience such as that proposed by the Blackpool challenge partnership would be undermined if deregulation leads to the establishment of small casinos in just about every small working-class town in the north-west. Why should people want to go to a resort casino in Blackpool if they already have a casino opportunity in Wigan, Skelmersdale, Burnley or, as I suggested to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, even Knowsley? For that reason I believe that the suggestion made by the Blackpool challenge partnership that Blackpool might be a pilot area has attractions. I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider it. There are reasons to doubt that the market or the Government's proposal for a minimum floor space of 2,000 sq ft alone will provide adequate barriers to entry.
	The guidance that the Government issue to local authorities on the planning aspects of casino developments and, of course, the robust licensing and regulatory framework that the new gambling commission will need to put in place, are crucial elements of the ability of Government to deregulate and yet control expansion. Indeed, the more I read the White Paper, the more it seems to me that its authors within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport recognise that. I do not think that we are talking about a difference of concept. We now need to progress to considering the ways in which that will be achieved, and that is one reason why a shadow gambling commission would be such a good idea.
	Local authorities will need to have regard to many considerations. For example, in assessing the proposed location, they will need to have regard to the current practice that casinos remain open until 6 am. While the industry is keen to ensure that there is consistency of decision making and an appeal process where outcomes can be reasonably predicted, many existing casino operators have expressed concern that if the planning process is too easy we could see the creation of a significant number of relatively down-market establishments, which characterised the industry in the early 1960s, before the current legislation was introduced. I was in the police at west end central when the Gaming Act 1968 was introduced, and I have seen some of these places in London. The casino industry has now been professionalised and brought into a world of total integrity and probity. We do not want to return to the previous situation, but there are dangers that if the process is too easy, that is precisely what will happen.
	Other responsible elements within the gaming industry generally have equally expressed anxiety that deregulation should not lead to the creation of what are little more than gaming machine warehouses. These would have high social costs but bring low economic benefits. As I have indicated, they would also be to the detriment of economic regeneration if they discouraged the development of specialist resort casinos.
	We believe that the gambling commission must have the powers necessary to discourage that type of approach, and the necessary power and responsibility to ensure that persons seeking licences are beyond reproach and that criminal elements are prevented from permeating an industry that currently has impeccable standards of integrity and probity. In that, controls to prevent opportunities for money laundering are vital.
	Another issue for planners could be to require the operators of new casino developments to demonstrate how their proposals will aid the regeneration of the area in which they hope to locate. That could be particularly appropriate for planned developments in seaside resorts and other tourism destinations. Arguably, planning guidance might be framed so as to be generally favourable towards granting consent in locations where the leisure industry is crucial to the economy.
	The support or endorsement of the regional development agency may be another factor to consider, as the RDA is well placed to judge where a casino development fits into the plans for urban renaissance within the region, and its view would be of benefit.
	The ability to demonstrate tangible benefits to a local community might also be relevant. That is certainly the view and intention of the Blackpool challenge partnership. It wants to support good causes from gambling profits, although its ability to do so will of course depend on the tax structure that the Government introduce. An accusation was levelled at the Government that higher taxation was behind the deregulatory process. I was actually asked at the Bingo Association conference whether our response was generated by concerns about how much revenue we might make when we get back into government. Well, we might well be back in government when these proposals are implemented, but I agree with the Minister—I do not believe that taxation is driving this agenda. However, taxation is crucial to the ability of gambling to benefit the local communities in which these casinos are likely to be placed, so when may we expect to see some guidance on the likely taxation environment? It will be important to have the Government's view on that by the time that Parliament begins to deal with the Bill.
	The concept of community benefit sits well with the attitude of the gambling industry at present about social responsibility and the need to minimise the negative social consequences of deregulation. That brings me to the final point that I want to address: the proposal for the establishment of a new gambling trust, to which the Minister also referred. The British Casino Association and others have taken the lead in working with other trade bodies in the industry to establish the gambling industry charitable trust. I am sure that there is no need for me to restate the excellent initial progress that has been made by the trust, but its future funding remains an issue yet to be finally resolved.
	Although I am sure that responsible elements in the industry will be willing to provide their fair share of the cost of supporting the trust's work in helping people who develop problems with their gambling as well as researching the issue, that apparent willingness is no guarantee that the entire industry will be as forthcoming or that the necessary funding will be secured. Some people in the gambling industry have already commented that it would be a bit rich if they were asked to pick up the social cost of developments that they advised against at the start.
	The Minister has said that, if necessary, the Government will impose a statutory scheme. I should be grateful to him if, in his winding-up speech, he would give the House and the industry some indication of the basis on which a statutory scheme would be established. If he cannot do so today, perhaps he will consider doing so in the weeks ahead. We agree that the imposition of any levy must apply to the entire industry, not merely to the members of the trade bodies.
	We generally support the Government's approach, although of course we are concerned that deregulation should not lead to an increase in problem gambling, with the difficult social consequences that that would bring. Nevertheless, I hope that we can work with the Government to establish a common way forward and that, in that spirit, the Minister will accept that what I have said today is intended to be constructive and helpful in ensuring that this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a gambling environment more appropriate to contemporary society is properly secured. Proceeding at a sensible pace and always with a clear eye on the importance of social responsibility and economic regeneration will help to achieve our objective.

Anne Begg: I suppose that I should begin by congratulating the Government on dropping their plans for members' clubs. I have to admit that I was one of the many hon. Members who had deluged the Minister with letters that I received from my constituents and from everything from the local trades club to bowling clubs and golf clubs, which thought that a valuable part of their income would be lost.
	I find it slightly amusing that I am speaking in a debate about gambling. I am one of the 3 per cent. of the population who has never bought a lottery ticket in their lives. Apart from taking part in the ubiquitous raffles that seem to pervade every social event in Scotland, I do not gamble at all, although I have to make a big confession: when I was teaching, I quite enjoyed the end of term sweepstake—we called it a sweepie—that we used to run on the length of the head teacher's speech on prize-giving day.
	I always took a very hard-headed approach to gambling and knew that the figures always mean that people lose more than they ever win. That concept brings me here today, and I want to concentrate on a specific part of gambling legislation. I wish to refer to some of my constituents' experience of a pyramid gifting scheme called Women Empowering Women. It is an insidious scheme that tricks women into parting with large sums of money in the belief that they will win back even larger sums.
	I have pursued the issue of pyramid gifting schemes for some time. I did so initially with the Department of Trade and Industry, as it issued warnings against such schemes on its website, saying that women in particular—although men have been involved—should not become involved in them. I had naively assumed that such schemes might be covered by the Trading Schemes Act 1996, the regulations of which came into force in 1997. Of course, that Act covers the regulations regarding pyramid selling.
	I had thought that pyramid gifting schemes would be covered under that legislation, but the DTI says that that is not the case. It claims that only pyramid selling is covered and that goods and services have to be involved. I found myself in a circular argument with the DTI about whether gifting schemes should be covered by that legislation, but it says no. I have asked parliamentary questions, and found that there have been no prosecutions under the legislation. The DTI kept telling me that any such scheme should be covered under gambling legislation. That is why I am here today to make my plea to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that it will seriously consider such gifting schemes.
	Such schemes should not be regulated, but made illegal. I wish to take some of the House's time to explain how such schemes work. Women Empowering Women is the current scheme, but there are many more, and they keep changing their names. Apparently, a new one called Diamonds is now doing the rounds in the midlands. Women Empowering Women came from the United States of America, started on the Isle of Wight, made its way up the country and reached Aberdeen as a brand new thing last summer.
	Lots of women were sucked into the scheme, believing that they would make lots of money, but when the scheme hits a new area, women are invited to a party and asked to invest—that is the word that is always used—£3,000 of their own money. If they then recruit two friends to the scheme, they will work their way up the pyramid from the gifting level to the receiving level. They are told that they will get £24,000 when they get to the receiving level, and that happens.
	The first people to go into those pyramids win large sums. We can imagine the excitement. The schemes are often arranged at parties, and women go along and get sucked in because they see wads of money being thrown down on the table and women walking out with £12,000 or £24,000, which they have picked up that night. They are carried along with that spirit of excitement, and they pledge their £3,000.
	In Aberdeen, with a fairly buoyant economy, that happened for some time. Believe it or not, quite a number of women can put their hands on £3,000 ready money, but the arithmetic obviously does not add up and, very quickly, the number of women who can put their hands on that kind of money soon dries up. Of course the amounts that then have to be pledged are reduced to about £100.
	At Christmas last year, leaflets went through letter boxes in Aberdeen telling women that if they invested—again, the word "invested", not "gamble", was used—£100, they would have £800 for Christmas. By the time that the scheme reaches that stage, the women who get involved tend to be the poorest and most vulnerable.
	Just last week in Scotland, the Daily Record and the Sunday Herald ran articles saying that, in Glasgow, some of those women are going to loan sharks to borrow the money. Of course they lose the money and are then at the mercy of the loan sharks.
	The scheme is appalling. The women who are involved in it do not even think it is a gamble; they think that it is an investment, and there is a strange belief that, like the stock market, more money will be created somehow.
	I shall briefly explain why the arithmetic does not add up. For one person to win, eight people have to lose. For those eight people to win—I suppose that this is the gambling terminology—64 people have to lose. If those 64 people were to win, 512 would have to lose. For those 512 people to win, 4,096 have to lose. So it is obvious that all those people in an area who are gullible enough, or who have not really appreciated what they are getting themselves into, quickly lose their money.
	The scheme always gets legs again in an area because the men then get involved. The scheme has run out of women, so men are encouraged to become involved. I know of a pensioner in Aberdeen who has lost £1,000, which was his holiday money for this year. He intends to take a case against the women whom he thinks tricked him out of £1,000 to the small claims court in Aberdeen next week. I have no idea how well he will get on, but the police have told him that such schemes are not illegal and his lawyer has said that it is not worth engaging him because of the sums involved.
	The way in which schemes are perceived is a problem. The folk involved do not believe that they are gambling or that there is anything morally wrong with them. Of course they are morally wrong; it is a con trick. Like the cleverest and best con tricks, there always have to be winners to fool and persuade others that perhaps they can be winners too. I am most concerned about vulnerable people.
	I spoken to many people about such schemes, and I found myself appearing on GMTV, for example, this morning. Those who have won say, "Oh, but it's just a gamble. People know that they might lose." I am afraid that, very often, people do not know that they will lose. It is not a gamble; if it we were, it would be regulated, as gambling generally is.
	The participants do not believe that they are gambling. They think that they are investing their money and that, somehow, they will get that money back. Pyramid gifting schemes cannot be regulated: they need to be completely outlawed. That has been done in some states in the United States, and there have been successful prosecutions. The prosecutions have been of people who participate in the schemes, not necessarily those who organise them—it is difficult to work out who is at the head of the pyramid. As schemes move into an area, the people involved are not necessarily those who thought up the scheme.
	I am raising the issue again this morning because I am still not convinced that the Government have got the message. I hope that I will get a good response from the Minister this morning. On page 23 of the Government's response to the Budd report, under the title "Prize Competitions", it states:
	"The consultation, however, threw up a number of concerns, and we are not, at this stage, satisfied that all of the potential issues have been fully identified. We therefore intend to undertake a separate, detailed review of prize competitions and similar quasi-gambling products."
	I suspect that Women Empowering Women and other gifting schemes are the quasi-gambling products. That is fine. As a result, I tabled a parliamentary question a few weeks ago to discover that that separate report was announced on 23 May; I must have missed it. The consultation paper mentions quasi-gambling products.
	In relation to the consultation document, chain letters are mentioned, which work in a very similar way. Letters are sent saying, "Send £10 or £200 to the person at the top of this letter, put your name to the bottom of it, and send it to 200 people you know,"—or do not know, as the case may be. The consultation document states:
	"There is a legal ruling of long standing to the effect that a chain letter . . . can come within the definition of a lottery. The legislation on gambling which the Government now plans to promote—and whose broad outline is set out in 'A Safe Bet for Success'—may provide an opportunity to improve legal safeguards, in as far as these are necessary, and that is something which we will need to consider."
	Pyramid gifting schemes, however, are not mentioned unequivocally. I want to make sure that pyramid gifting schemes will definitely be covered in any new legislation. The Government's intention to bring in new legislation on prize competitions as part of the Bill that may come out of the report that we are discussing is mentioned at the end of the document.
	I do not want to be in the same circular position that I was in with the Department of Trade and Industry. I am fairly sure that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not like the DTI at all, and I will not get fobbed off as I feel that I have been—slightly—by the DTI. I make a plea for a definition not only of chain letters but of a pyramid gifting scheme—it cannot be called Women Empowering Women, as, by the time that the legislation is introduced, that particular scheme will have been and gone. The idea of these schemes continues to have currency, however, and they have been bubbling around for a number of years. A definition would allow us, at long last, to outlaw them. We should make it absolutely clear to anyone who takes part in such a scheme that it is immoral, wrong and illegal.
	I have taken the Department of Trade and Industry's advice, and I am pursuing the matter through the gambling legislation. The ball is now in the Government's court. I make a plea to the Government to make the legislation watertight and to outlaw these odious, insidious schemes once and for all. We should make it absolutely clear to the vulnerable, and to those who do not realise what they are getting involved in, that this is a gamble, and a gamble that they will lose.

John Thurso: May I begin by picking up on the excellent point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)? I learned this morning that a number of women in the company that I left shortly after the election had become victims, after my departure, of the scheme to which she referred. They have lost quite a lot of money. These are intelligent, hard-working, professional women and, as the hon. Lady said, it is the excitement, the party atmosphere, and, possibly, having a few glasses of wine, that makes it far more a gamble than anything else.
	The hon. Lady was right to mention that those who perpetrate these schemes pretend that it is an investment, which it clearly is not. I would say that it is not even gambling, as there is almost no hope whatever of winning. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), with his police background, would probably be able to advise us of the proper term for it, but it is probably fraud and obtaining money by deception. The Government should take note of that, and I hope that they will take it on board. The hon. Lady might like to consider submitting a short memorandum to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I see other members of that Committee in the Chamber, whom I think were equally struck by these schemes, and we may want to include them in our report.
	I am pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss the Budd report and the Government's response to it. I congratulate the Government's business managers on having it brought forward—like the hon. Member for Ryedale, I am sorry that the debate is on Friday; it would have had an even greater attendance had it been held between Monday and Thursday. We should be grateful, however, and I am delighted that we have the debate. It might have been better to hold it a little later because the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's inquiry is at an advanced stage. I anticipate that its report will be available in the not-too-distant future. I hope that it would have added to our debate.
	Notwithstanding that, I warmly welcome the Budd report, which was excellent. It dealt with the issues in considerable detail, as well as the many recommendations that were put forward. I congratulate the Government on their response to the report, which, in the main, was measured, and showed that there is considerable agreement in all sectors and in all parts of the House on the recommendations and any eventual legislation.
	It is clear that the gambling legislation needs to be reformed because it is a piecemeal agglomeration from the 1960s. That alone would be a significant reason for reform, but there is another reason. A significant change in attitude has taken place since the 1950s and 1960s, when gambling was fairly frowned on. It was tolerated in the sense that, if people had to do it, they could do it somewhere fairly uncomfortable. Today, however, it is broadly recognised as an acceptable leisure pursuit, and it is therefore right that regulation should be relaxed.
	Budd appropriately considers first principles, and that is where our debate today should begin. I am glad that the Minister referred to that. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between the individual freedom that any person may have to do what they choose, and the appropriate control of an activity that clearly has a downside. A difference also exists between the rights of individuals to enjoy gambling in good premises that are well looked after and properly protected and the rights of companies. I do not think that companies have a right, as such, to offer gambling; they are permitted to offer gambling provided that they obey the rules that are set out and operate in a fit and proper, generally responsible way. There is a difference between what individuals are entitled to do and what companies should be permitted to do.
	The central thrust of the report is the way in which gambling is to be controlled in the future. Liberal Democrats welcome the concept of a single regulator—a gambling commission—to bring all the central issues together. The key principle behind that is set out in paragraph 1.9 of the Government's response, which says:
	"gambling should be crime-free, honest and conducted in accordance with regulation . . . players should know what to expect and be confident that they will get it and not be exploited . . . there should be adequate protection for children and vulnerable persons."
	I am sure that we all agree that such principles should be the basis for regulation.
	I may not look it, but I am just old enough to remember reading the newspapers in the 1960s. I remember the stories of the Krays and the Richardsons and the problems that surrounded gambling. It is imperative that we exercise a certain caution as we relax the legislation to ensure that there is no chance of those days returning.
	We should also pay regard to the sophisticated money laundering that now takes place. I am not sure where I learned this, but I believe that the best and cheapest way to launder money is through an on-course bookmaker. In considering the relaxation of the legislation, it is important to ensure that we do not allow money laundering activities to increase. The punter should be able to play an honest, fair and open game with a clear knowledge of what he can win and lose.
	Of the three key principles stated in the Government's response, the protection of children and of those who suffer from gambling are at the top. The proposals for a single controlling body will go a long way to help to achieve that aim. The gambling commission must set out clearly the rules that will be applied to the individuals who take part in gambling and stipulate the basic requirements for each premises. In particular, I welcome the proposal for increased application of the fit-and-proper test to people involved in offering gambling activities.
	Clearly, there is tension between the central and local provisions for the licensing of premises. I welcome the move away from licensing justices to licensing authorities. It is an essential part of local democracy that elected people can be held to account for the decisions that they take. I was a licensee in England and I owned a licensed premises in Scotland, so I have seen the workings of licensing justices in England and licensing local authorities in Scotland in relation to places that sell alcohol. There is no substantial difference between the two. One is as likely to get a good local authority as a bad one in Scotland, and one is as likely to find good licensing justices as bad ones in England. Therefore, the question is not whether we should have licensing justices or licensing authorities, but how the legislation is passed and the instructions that are given.
	A local authority, with the backing of its electorate, should be entitled to say that it does not want gambling in its area. Companies should not necessarily have the absolute right to intervene to offer gambling wherever they want if local people do not want it.
	I welcome the increase in the use of the fit-and-proper test to deal with problem gambling and the move to place a duty of care on casinos. It is right that casino employees should have a duty of care. I am sure that they know when a person is a problem gambler, so the employers should be part of the solution and not part of the problem. In that regard, we would benefit from more research. I hope that the Minister will reflect, in the months before any legislation is introduced, on what research can be undertaken on problem gambling. That would give us a proper idea of its extent. There is not much research going on at the moment.
	An industry trust is an excellent idea. A statutory levy would be better than a voluntary one because it would be clear-cut and laid down by Government with no one excepted from it. That is the best way for people to contribute. I accept that it is more likely that we will start with a voluntary levy, but I hope that we will have provision to make the levy statutory should the voluntary one not work.
	The lottery is clearly different from other forms of gambling; it is at the softer end of the spectrum. It also exists to deliver funds for good causes. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ryedale in that I believe that we should leave the national lottery with a separate and independent regulator, because there are many differences between it and the rest of the gambling industry. However, I happily accept that, in the fullness of time, my view may prove to be based on an incorrect assumption. I therefore agree with him that there should be provision in the legislation to bring the lottery within the remit of the central gambling commission should that become necessary. That is a sensible suggestion.
	I would be unhappy to see side-betting on the lottery. I am convinced by the evidence that I have heard in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that that is dangerous. However, I am not convinced by Camelot's arguments about society lotteries. As has been said, they are an important way of funding a number of charitable causes, so we should be careful about over-regulation.
	I welcome all the Government's suggestions about gaming machines and, as every hon. Member who speaks is likely to say, I welcome the proposals for members' clubs. I welcome the fact that the Government listened on that issue even if one sometimes needed a megaphone to make one's point. I also believe that the changes to category D machines will be good, but the reduction in the stake from 30p to 10p will make them a borderline economic activity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) pointed out, they might become uneconomic. It is another issue on which we should show flexibility.
	On casino resorts, the Minister will be aware of my long connection with the tourism industry. Some seaside resorts, such as Blackpool, Brighton and Bournemouth, will have an opportunity to develop an exciting product that can help to regenerate their areas. However, I add a note of caution. We will not be able to create a casino resort in every county—there is not room to do that—so they will not be a general panacea that will attract tourists to all parts of the country. The Minister and the Department would therefore be wise to consider how best to manage the process. The worst of all worlds would be to have 20 seaside resorts simultaneously competing for business when there is not sufficient business for them all.
	I am delighted that e-gambling and e-commerce will be brought within the law. Clearly, it is better to have them covered by UK law, as that will enable us to control them.
	The Minister suggested that he hoped that legislation would be introduced in 2003–04. Four years ago, I remember being told by a Minister that he was hopeful of introducing legislation on alcohol licensing in the not-too-distant future. We are still waiting for that. I hope that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has the resources and the power to introduce legislation on gambling, because many of the suggestions that have been aired have excited an appetite for change within the industry. If we do not have change, we will face problems.
	It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Vaccine Manufacture

Hazel Blears: I should like to make a statement about the use of animal products in the manufacture of vaccines. The purpose of this statement is to correct the public record and to inform Members that I have placed three detailed reports on these issues in the Library. Nothing in any of the reports alters the assessment of experts: there are no transmissible spongiform encephalopathy-related safety issues arising from the use of relevant animal-derived materials in the production of vaccines authorised for use in the United Kingdom. However, I thought it right to come to the House to apologise for any inaccurate information that has been provided, and to set out the actual position as clearly as possible. It is important in particular to provide clear assurances for the public that the vaccines that protect both children and adults from harm are manufactured to the highest and safest standards.
	On 23 October 2000, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the former Minister for Public Health, reported to the House that an oral polio vaccine had been recalled. That action was a precautionary measure because the vaccine licensed to Medeva Pharma used UK-sourced bovine material in its routine manufacturing production. My hon. Friend informed the House that a full review would be undertaken of all the advice given to Ministers on BSE-related issues and vaccines since 1997 in order to ensure that all the information given to Parliament was correct. She also advised the House that she had asked the Government's expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, to produce a comprehensive assessment of BSE-related issues in vaccines.
	Bovine—cattle—products are a traditional component of vaccine manufacture worldwide. Without them, it would not have been possible to have produced so many vaccines over the years that, literally, have been life-saving for millions of people. Routine childhood vaccines such as diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, HiB—haemophilus influenzae b—and measles, mumps and rubella, will have involved the use of cattle products at early developmental stages in their production, and some of those might have been UK sourced.
	The manufacture of vaccines is an extremely complex and technical process involving a number of different stages. For example, one bovine product, foetal calf serum, is regularly used at a number of stages in the manufacturing process of viral vaccines. It is used first at the earliest point, when stores of viruses and cells are first created. They are known as master seeds and master cell banks. Secondly, it is used when material is drawn from those stores to be grown further. Such materials are known as working cells and seeds. Thirdly, it is used during the phase when greater volumes of material are grown, which is known as bulking up. At the very final stage of vaccine production, inactive ingredients such as stabilisers are added, but they are highly processed and, as I say, inactive products. It is worth adding that the Medicines Control Agency advises that UK-sourced gelatin, which can be used as a stabiliser, is no longer used in pharmaceutical manufacture.
	The oral polio vaccine that was withdrawn in October 2000 was the only vaccine then in use in the United Kingdom vaccine programme for which UK-derived cattle blood products had been used in the later stages of the manufacturing process. It transpired on investigation that one constituent of the vaccine had been produced using material drawn down from old stored stocks dating to 1985 which had been produced using UK calf serum. The material had been used in the routine production process, not just in the early developmental stages—the production of master and working cell and seed banks. That did not apply to other vaccines in use at the time. That is why OPV was different.
	The chief medical officer has examined the circumstances of the production of that vaccine and its subsequent withdrawal. He concluded that, on a precautionary basis, the decision to withdraw was the correct one. However, he also concluded that the public health implications were reassuring for three reasons: first, because of the major dilution effect during purification and washing, which removed all but traces—estimated to a dilution of one part in 10 million—of serum; secondly, because foetal calf serum is a substance classified by the relevant 1999 European guideline as having "no detectable infectivity"; and thirdly, because the Committee on Safety of Medicines ad hoc working party on TSE and safety of vaccines concluded in October 2000 that the risk of Medeva oral polio vaccine transmitting new variant CJD was "incalculably small".
	At Ministers' request, the Committee on Safety of Medicines has looked more widely at all vaccines available on the UK market. It was assisted by a working party of experts consisting of members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and its sub-committee on biologicals, as well as experts in TSEs, vaccinology, epidemiology, paediatrics, molecular medicine, virology and biological medicines. The CSM drew the following conclusion:
	"there were no demonstrable TSE-related safety issues arising from the use of relevant animal-derived materials, including UK bovine (cattle) materials in the manufacture of vaccines currently available on the UK market".
	In other words, after an exhaustive and rigorous review, the CSM found no source for concern in relation to TSEs about the safety of vaccines used in this country.
	We should also remember, when considering the safety profile of these vaccines, that they are manufactured for a global market. We import from other EU States and the rest of the world, and we export UK-manufactured vaccines to them. The vaccines that are available globally have been the subject of similar safety reviews by the United States Food and Drug Administration and its Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products at the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. They have all independently arrived at similar conclusions.
	Ministers have now received three reports, which together provide a comprehensive analysis and account of the issues related to TSEs and vaccines. They have today been placed in the Library. The first is the chief medical officer's report into the issues surrounding the withdrawal of the Evans/Medeva oral polio vaccine. The second is the consolidated review of TSE agents and the safety of UK-authorised human vaccines, which was undertaken by the Committee on Safety of Medicines at Ministers' request. The third is a report by the Medicines Control Agency, which explains in detail the development of the guidance and the agency's approach to its implementation.
	It is clear from those reports that some statements have been made in Parliament that have been either incorrect or misleading. Ministers made the statements on the basis of incorrect advice and information given to them at the time by the Medicines Control Agency, which licenses medicines for the UK market and monitors the safety of medicines in use. I repeat my apologies to the House and convey those of my predecessors for the fact that incorrect or misleading information was thus given to Parliament, albeit in good faith.
	I have placed in the Library a detailed index of the written answers that are being corrected or clarified. I have today written to Members who asked those questions, explaining how events occurred and setting the record straight. Copies are available in the Library. I have also answered a written question tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about the rules that apply to the use of animal material in the production of vaccines.
	There are five areas in which statements made by Ministers based on advice and information from the MCA have been shown to be incorrect or misleading. As I have mentioned, full details of those errors are available to Members in the Library. These factual errors arose through misinterpretations, in the advice to Ministers, of the highly technical and continually evolving guidelines governing the use of animal products in medicines, together with the difficulties of establishing a clear audit trail for vaccines whose manufacture may date back decades.
	The first area to clarify is that, contrary to earlier advice from the MCA, the guidelines have never entirely ruled out the use of UK-derived bovine material. Secondly, statements indicated that the MCA would not license any product that did not comply with the guidelines. In fact, the MCA can in certain circumstances license products that do not fully comply, provided that the necessary risk assessment has been carried out. Thirdly, contrary to information supplied by the MCA, not all licence holders were able to demonstrate through documentary evidence that all their materials complied with the guidelines.
	Fourthly, dates cited for switching from UK-derived materials were inaccurate, and so were expiry dates given for some vaccines. Finally, statements indicated or implied that bovine-derived excipients are not used in the manufacture of vaccines. In fact, excipients, which as I said are highly processed and inactive substances and which may be derived from bovine materials, are sometimes present in finished vaccines.
	Guidelines aimed at minimising the risk of transmitting animal spongiform encephalopathies via medicinal products have been in existence since 1989, first in the UK. TSE guidelines have increasingly applied Europe- wide and have evolved over time. Since March 2001, they have had the force of European law for all licensed medicinal products.
	A major exercise is now taking place under the auspices of the European licensing authorities to ensure that all vaccines are assessed for compliance against a revised set of guidelines, which we expect to be introduced this summer. That will apply to all European countries, not just the UK. The revised European guidelines will allow working seeds and working cell banks for which relevant animal material has been used to comply, provided that they are subjected to a properly conducted risk assessment by a competent authority in the country concerned—in the United Kingdom's case, the MCA.
	Many vaccines will be technically in breach of European guidance until the new guidelines are adopted. There are 95 licensed vaccines in the United Kingdom. Of those, 26 are still completing the process. However, in the United Kingdom, the appropriate risk assessment has already been carried out on all licensed vaccines, including those 26, and no TSE-related risks have been found.
	The House can be assured that public health and safety is a top priority for the Government. We will continue to ensure that the public health implications of the use of animal materials in the manufacture of all medicines are rigorously evaluated and that any concerns identified are referred to the relevant domestic and European scientific committees for consideration and resolution. If any new public health concerns come to light, we will not hesitate to act in a precautionary manner, as indeed we did in the case of the oral polio vaccine in October 2000.
	Let us be in no doubt that vaccination is the single most important public health measure of modern times. Vaccines save millions of lives around the world every year. When we think about the terrible unsolved health problems of the developing world, we look to vaccines to conquer disease and death, and in our own country vaccines continue to save lives.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to come to the House to correct the parliamentary record and to provide the fullest possible information to hon. Members and the public on this important subject.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Minister for an early sight of her statement; it was a most useful quarter of an hour.
	The statement is important. We all remember the fears expressed when the polio vaccine was recalled that new variant CJD might have been spread and that something like 100,000 doses of the vaccine had been used in the preceding year. So today's reassurance about the safety of the vaccines is welcome. However, it seems that the advice of the Medicines Control Agency to Ministers was comprehensively inaccurate and led to many UK vaccines breaching European guidance and—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—European law. How did that happen? What steps will she take to ensure that it does not happen again?
	We have four concerns: first, that advice to Ministers is accurate; secondly, that the mechanisms by which the authorities are alerted to non-compliance of vaccines with national and international standards is robust; thirdly, that the tendering process is effective and transparent; and fourthly, that the Government's response is speedy and swift when they are alerted to such problems.
	Will the Minister publish the guidance that Ministers were given, including the new guidance? Can she confirm whether the Medicines Control Agency licensed products that were not compliant with European guidance, as apparently it was allowed to do, and will she identify which products? Which licence holders were unable to show compliance with the guidance issued in Europe, as set out in her statement? What were the inaccuracies with regard to the switch from UK-derived materials and what expiry dates were wrong? Will she also outline the involvement of the company that gave rise to the original concerns—PowderJect—given its dominant position in the UK market and the fact that the company's chief executive is a major donor to the Labour party?
	On the particular case of the oral polio vaccine, how did the authorities discover that it was not compliant or that there were concerns about it, and on what date? Did PowderJect inform the authorities, or was it the other way around? When was Medeva made aware of the concerns of the authorities? PowderJect purchased Medeva in September 2000 and the recall occurred just a few weeks later on 20 October 2000. In its press statement, PowderJect said that it
	"did not, and does not, intend to manufacture"
	the Medeva oral polio vaccine. Did the authorities alert PowderJect to the concerns about the oral polio vaccine prior to the purchase of the company? What was the lapse of time between the authorities becoming aware of non-compliance and acting to recall the vaccine? What reassurances can the Minister give that the tendering process for vaccines will be transparent and effective in ensuring compliance and safety?
	Finally, the speed of the Government's response is crucial. We know that there were concerns that they did not act quickly enough over foot and mouth. What can she say to reassure us that swift and prompt action was taken in this particular case given that it involved human health rather than that of animals, important though that is?

Hazel Blears: The guidance available to Ministers from the European guidelines is published and available. A full description is in the report by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, which has been placed in the Library.
	On whether the MCA licensed products that did not comply with guidelines, the example of lactose has been brought to my attention. As the necessary risk assessment had been carried out, it was proper for the MCA to do that. Statements were made that it was not possible to license a product that did not comply with the guidelines, but those statements were wrong, hence my correction. In fact, it was possible providing the necessary risk assessment had been carried out. It is important to be aware that in the UK a risk assessment of every vaccine has been carried out and that no risks have been found. That applies equally to lactose products.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about licence holders who are unable to comply. At the moment, 26 vaccines are going through the European process. Some of them do not comply because the working seeds and working cells contain UK-derived bovine material. When the guidelines are revised later on in the summer, working seeds and working cells will comply because the guidelines are evolving. Already master seeds and master cells are outwith the guidelines. We anticipate that in the latest revision of the guidelines working seeds and working cells will be compliant. A number of vaccines are simply waiting for that revision to the guideline. Other vaccines require further documentary evidence of the audit trail of their materials before they can be fully compliant. I do not have a list of the individual licence holders who are unable to comply at the moment, but a range of manufacturers and vaccines are in that position because of the vaccines' components.
	PowderJect was in the same position as many other manufacturers because the oral polio vaccine did not comply with guidelines. The legal advice received by the MCA was that while companies were trying to comply and going through the lengthy European process of providing documentary evidence, prosecution for non-compliance would have been a disproportionate step to take. PowderJect was treated no differently from other manufacturers that were in the same position.
	On the mechanisms for alerting PowderJect, I am not aware of advice given to it in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. On 17 August 2000, the company itself, having received an inquiry about the status of the vaccine, notified the MCA that the product had been made using material that had been exposed to UK-derived calf serum. On 18 August, the MCA began to investigate, and in the week commencing 16 October, after two months of investigations, it informed the Department of Health of the matter. Ministers decided, on the precautionary principle, to withdraw the vaccine, and it was recalled from 20 October, so it is clear that swift action was taken on the oral polio vaccine.
	As I said, that was a precaution because at the time that the vaccine was withdrawn the European guideline did not have legal effect; that did not begin until March 2001. In October 2000, it had the status only of guidance, so technically there was not an offence or a breach of a legally binding guideline. It is therefore fair to say that Ministers acted very swiftly. The chronology of events is set out in the chief medical officer's report, which is in the Library. That goes into great detail about the various stages at which information was known and about what action was taken. The chief medical officer has confirmed that the correct decision was made on the oral polio vaccine.
	I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that advice to Ministers is accurate. That is essential, particularly when we are dealing with issues of safety and public confidence. I agree too that mechanisms for alerting Ministers should be robust and rigorous. On the MCA, various steps have been taken. It was announced on 13 June that it is to merge with the Medical Devices Agency to create a new agency.
	We are also introducing non-executive directors, which the MCA did not previously have, and appointing a chairman to the authority to make sure that its governance is more robust. On its reporting mechanisms, particularly concerning TSE issues, it has been directed to set up a database to ensure that everything is properly calculated and monitored.
	We have also asked for more steps to be taken to try to check the validity of what manufacturers tell the MCA. It is an established principle that regulators would find it impossible to follow up or question the validity of every statement made to them by companies. The role of a regulator is to set a regulatory framework and to leave accountability with the producers. However, there is a case for the MCA to carry out more sampling to establish the validity of some of the information supplied by companies.
	It was the information supplied by companies about the expiry dates of vaccines, which the MCA gave to Ministers, which proved to be incorrect, so it is important to follow up such information, but we must recognise that it would not be appropriate or possible to check everything. Certainly we must try to make the process more robust.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for the tendering process to be transparent. That is important, and people ought to have access to the decision-making process.

Evan Harris: I too thank the Minister for the day's notice that she gave me of this statement and for giving me three reports to read in 20 minutes, plus a statement saying that there is another important document in another building. This experience, which started just over half an hour ago, has been interesting.
	Will the Minister pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who has been assiduous in pursuing his concerns about the presence of bovine material in the vaccine manufacturing process? He began with a parliamentary question on 25 March 1999 to the Minister's predecessor but two, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), which is when the inadvertent misinformation started. My hon. Friend also secured an Adjournment debate in March 2000 in which further inaccurate information was passed on.
	I understand that my hon. Friend wrote a letter to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is in her place, in May 2000. Two years later, he says that he has still not had a reply, so in addition to the supply of inaccurate information, there is a question about Ministers giving no information at all in response to questions.
	I want to place on record my belief that the current vaccine programme has integrity, that it is important that people should continue to have vaccinations and that their enormous benefits outweigh any risk from TSEs, however small that may be or have been. Does the Minister accept, however, that faith in that important and effective vaccine programme is based on full openness and clarity on the issues from Ministers and their advisers to the public at large?
	In her statement, the Minister said "Nothing in any of the reports alters the assessment of experts: there are no transmissible spongiform encephalopathy-related safety issues arising from the use of relevant animal-derived materials in the production of vaccines authorised for use in the United Kingdom." However, the report talks about "no demonstrable" TSE-related safety issues. It is not clear whether the Minister was talking about the vaccine programme now—I am sure that if there was a risk, the programme is much safer than it was—or whether it was always the case that there were no safety issues. It is important that that is clarified. The Minister also talked, in her statement, about the manufacture of vaccines that are currently available on the UK market, and it is not clear whether her remarks relate to vaccines that were previously available. People will have concerns about that.
	The Minister did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about whether she had published the guidance given to her. She said that Ministers were misled by advice and information from the MCA in five areas, and some of those, such as the presence or not of excipients in the finished vaccine product, are so obvious that it would be useful for the House, in judging whether her actions on the MCA are sufficient, to see that guidance in its original form. We could then judge just how deficient it was, not only in what the MCA had been told by the manufacturers but in its conclusions about the basic make-up of the finished vaccine.
	Will the Minister clarify certain issues relating to PowderJect? As was set out in her statement, in the chief medical officer's report and in her response just now, the MCA was informed in August 2000 that the oral polio vaccine was not compliant. Indeed, the agency established that for itself on a visit to the Speke factory in September 2000. Why did it take until 16 October for Ministers to be informed, during which period another company paid to take over Medeva and Evans vaccines? Clearly the company, and possibly the purchasers, had market- sensitive information that Ministers and other market players did not.
	What action does the Minister propose to take against manufacturers such as Evans who failed to respond quickly to the request for information made in spring 2000 and who may have given misleading information? I am sure that although there was no breach of the law the Government must have some sanction, such as the withdrawal of preferred supplier status, that they could use against those companies.
	Clearly we need a debate on this subject. Will the Minister ask her business managers whether we can have a proper exchange, in Government time, so that we can have a full and frank discussion of the extent to which Members of the House have been inadvertently misled by Ministers? We could use the opportunity further to reinforce the confidence that the public should have in the current vaccine programme.

Hazel Blears: I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) in pursuing these matters in parliamentary questions and in an Adjournment debate in March 2000. Following that debate, Ministers asked the Committee on Safety of Medicines to start the first of its three reviews on the matter, so the hon. Gentleman certainly played an important role.
	I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for confirming his support for the current vaccine programme and the important role that vaccinations play in public health. He is right that openness and clarity on the issue is crucial to public confidence, and that is why I am here today: to set the record straight and to reassure the public about the safety of the manufacturing of vaccines.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the conclusions of the Committee on Safety of Medicines reviews. I can confirm that there were three reviews, one of which was looking at the current vaccines that are available. There was a risk assessment of the components, and the reports looked at the matrix of where materials came from and what kind of materials were used at what stage of the production process. There was a good examination of all the current products that are used.
	At the request of Ministers, the committee went on to look at the possibility raised in the Phillips report on BSE as to whether BSE might have emerged earlier than is the accepted case, in the 1970s. The committee was looking at the worst possible scenario. It said that there was no reason to depart from the conclusions of the first review: that there was no demonstrable TSE risks in the use of animal derived material in the manufacture of vaccines.
	Clearly, the further we go back, the less documentary evidence is available. In looking at the master seeds that were manufactured in the 1960s, it is difficult to find a paper audit trail to take source material and traceability back to that level. However, the committee asked what the situation would be had BSE been around in the 1970s and what the effect would have been on TSEs in vaccines. That matter is in the full CSM report, which is in the Library.
	In terms of the advice given by the MCA to Ministers, I can do no better than say that the advice given by the MCA was contained in the incorrect answers to the parliamentary questions. That was the advice given to Ministers and clearly the parliamentary answers were prepared on the basis of that advice. That is in the public domain.
	In terms of the oral polio vaccine withdrawn in October 2000, the two month gap between the MCA being notified and Department of Health of Ministers being informed was criticised in the chief medical officer's report, which, again, is in the Library. This was too long a period for action to be taken and I have set out, in my reply to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the steps taken with regard to strengthening the advice and the systems at the MCA and the merger with the MDA.
	In terms of action against individual manufacturers, I have explained that, where they are going through the process of seeking compliance with European guidelines, the advice is that prosecution would be disproportionate. Clearly, if there is a deliberate and wilful failure to present information, the MCA has a mechanism open to it through the suspension of licences.
	The European committee is considering 400 different substances. It is half way through the process, and it will be some months yet before full documentary evidence is available to qualify for what is called the EQDM process. That process is ongoing and we are keen to make sure that we get as many products to comply with the guideline as quickly as we can. I am pleased that the guideline is to be varied to allow the working seeds and working cells to comply. That is a recognition that the science has developed a little faster than the legislation in this area. It is a constantly evolving process.
	I am more than happy to discuss with Members the question of a debate. There is a need to make a request to the business managers in the usual way. I am keen that we are open and that we have the fullest disclosure to the public and Members of Parliament about the safety of UK-marketed vaccines. That must be in the public domain and discussed.

Ross Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for the frankness of her statement. I remind her that the vaccines victims support group, with which I have had a close relationship since coming to the House, supports the vaccination programme and has nothing but praise for the Government in terms of the way in which they have made up to £100,000 available for parents of children damaged by vaccine. In this area, confidence is crucial. Can she say more about the changes in procedure and personnel in the MCA? Can she assure us that the changes will prevent this sort of faulty information from being given to the House in future? Finally, can she prepare summaries of these weighty documents in the Library so that hon. Members can fully understand them?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his support for the Government's action in relation to vaccine damage payments. We are all too well aware of the tragic nature of the cases involving those families. As he says, confidence in the vaccination programme is crucial. Vaccinations have saved millions of lives throughout the world and continue to do so.
	I have outlined some changes in the procedure, organisation and governance of the MCA and the way in which it will perform in future. A decision has been taken to merge the MCA with the MDA. There will be a stronger unit and organisation and that will take account of the increasingly blurred lines between medicines and devices. As technology develops, products are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish. In addition, we will have the non-executive directors and there will be a rigorous external perspective on the work of the MCA. There will be also be a chairman who will be able to represent the MCA, so that we have a more public presentation of the agency. It is important that there should be transparency so that the public can be confident in the procedures.
	I have explained that we want to strengthen the database and the information management of the MCA; again, that issue was raised by the chief medical officer in his report. I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend that that will be done.

David Tredinnick: The hon. Lady deserves congratulations on doing something very rare for this Government—coming to the House to apologise for a mistake. What will she do to reassure the public that these products are safe? One of the greatest health failures of the Government has been their inability to persuade the public that the MMR vaccine is safe. What is she going to do to improve that desperate situation? Can she confirm that despite the Oxford survey showing that anti-oxidants are not necessarily effective in treating heart disease, generally speaking vitamin supplements can be very helpful to the health of the nation?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the key issue is to reassure hon. Members and the public about safety and about the rigorous way in which the issues are examined. That is why the three reports in the Library—from the chief medical officer, the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the MCA—are important. These reports must be fully available.
	I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) that the summaries at the beginning of the reports set out the main recommendations, and making those accessible is very important. At all stages of the vaccination programme, Ministers have tried to be as open and honest as possible and have tried to share the advice of the medical experts. The amount of consideration that a range of scientific experts have applied to the vaccination programme has been immense. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) will be aware of the wide range of authorities involved. As I have said, the CSM, in its ad hoc working group, involved epidemiologists, virologists, immunologists, paediatricians and a range of scientific experts. It is very important that the public know that the Government take the matter extremely seriously and will look at every piece of evidence as it emerges.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to vitamin supplements. I have not had an opportunity to look at the issue, which is clearly of concern to him. I can assure him that all the matters that arise are considered by the Government and by experts in the field.

Keith Simpson: I am sure that the Minister and hon. Members will be grateful that the ministerial reaction to this matter came about largely as a consequence of hon. Members raising it in the form of questions and in the course of a debate. That should prove to people outside the House that Parliament often has an effective role.
	I want to put two questions to the Minister. First, as a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is clear to me that there is a read-across between health and agriculture in terms of science, disease and farming. Is the Minister satisfied that there are no other areas where the Department of Health is having to reassess statements or answers to the House concerning major health questions?
	Secondly, the Minister stated that there is not a danger from TSE in vaccines. Is she also saying that there is no TSE health danger to the public if they eat lamb?

Hazel Blears: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament works and that it is a testament to the former Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), that following the Adjournment debate with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), she asked the Committee on the Safety of Medicines to investigate the whole area and to review all the advice that had been given to Ministers since 1997, to try to ensure that what had been passed on to Parliament was correct. That is why I am here today—to ensure that the whole parliamentary record, which is so important, is put right.
	On reassessing evidence, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Department does that all the time as regards such complex scientific issues. If questions were raised, in the House or elsewhere, that threw doubt on statements that had been made, of course it would be right and proper to reassess the situation. I am not aware of any current such issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his experience on the Select Committee of the constantly moving nature of the science in these areas. As we discover more, matters need constantly to be assessed and reassessed.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second, more detailed, question about lamb, such matters should be considered by the Food Standards Agency, not by me.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister says that she came to the House as soon as it was practical and possible for her to do so, and we are grateful to her for that. It is vital that there be consent and agreement about the importance of vaccination and the role that it plays in the prevention of very serious diseases. Is she worried about the fact that it took the MCA two months to notify Ministers at the Department of Health? Has she any idea of how many vaccines were issued during the two-month period in which alarms were first raised at the MCA?
	Since knowing that she was going to make the statement, has the Minister had time to reflect on the calls made this week by the British Medical Association to take the percentage of vaccines administered out of doctors' contracts? People might have more confidence in the information that doctors give them on the urgency of taking vaccines if that was not part of doctors' contracts.

Hazel Blears: Yes, the Department is worried about the two-month gap. Indeed, in his review, the chief medical officer expressed his concern about the fact that it took the MCA two months to tell Ministers about the situation. I have outlined in my answers to other hon. Members the serious steps that we have taken as a result not only of that, but of the incorrect information that the MCA gave to Ministers over a period of time about the scope, extent and effect of the guidelines.
	I do not know precisely how many vaccines have been issued. If that information is available, I undertake to provide it to the hon. Gentleman.
	On the target payments for immunisation that are paid to general practitioners, there are two levels of payments—a higher level of 90 per cent. and a lower one of 70 per cent. That provides enough flexibility for GPs to be able to reach a certain level of immunisation. Any imputation that GPs would do things that they did not support to reach their target payments would be highly inappropriate. There are therefore no plans to change the situation.

Richard Bacon: The Minister announced that the Government were wrong in five major areas. I must say that that does not surprise me. My year in this place has taught me that the Government's capacity to get things wrong is more or less limitless. However, it is good that Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box to explain where they went wrong.
	The Minister referred to the question of confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) asked about MMR as well as vitamin supplements, but when she replied her lips did not utter the word "MMR" at all. I remember that when the former Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), answered a question on MMR some time ago, she castigated one of my hon. Friends for even suggesting that there could be something wrong, on the ground that that was "irresponsible". Does the Minister understand why there is public fear about MMR? One accepts that Ministers can make statements to the House only on the basis of the scientific advice that they are given, but the controls on that advice are not always adequate. Does the Minister accept that there is a case for carrying out further research on MMR, and can she tell the House what is being done in the way of Government-sponsored research to establish whether a small sub-group may be susceptible to the MMR vaccine in a way that most are not?

Hazel Blears: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that where incorrect or misleading answers were given, they were entirely based on advice from the MCA; Ministers are right to seek advice from people in the field. I have come here today to correct those factual inaccuracies. The answers did not change the scientific position; they were simply wrong in terms of dates and scopes of guidelines. Ministers rely on the advice that they receive from their scientific experts, and that is why I am here to correct the record.
	The MMR vaccines are in exactly the same position as many of the other vaccines that are waiting to become compliant. Essentially, they are working seeds and working cells that contain UK bovine-sourced material. When the guidelines are revised in the next few weeks, working seeds and working cells will be deemed to be compliant if they have had a risk assessment. They have all had a risk assessment by the CSM and the MCA, and there are no demonstrable TSE safety risks in relation to them. They are in exactly the same position as many of the other vaccines that are waiting to become compliant with European guidelines. The position as regards their manufacture is thus exactly the same—that is, no TSE safety risks are involved.
	On the other statements that Ministers have made on MMR, the hon. Gentleman must be aware, although he has been in the House for a relatively short time, that Ministers have always made statements on the basis of a range of scientific expert advice. In that, they are supported by the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. All those expert bodies have supplied information to Ministers, whose statements have always been made on the basis of the best scientific information that is available to them. That is entirely the appropriate way for Ministers to approach such matters.

Richard Bacon: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: On further research—

Richard Bacon: I just want an answer to my question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that when he is questioning a statement, he gets one bite at the cherry, and he did take a rather large bite.

Hazel Blears: A great deal of research is going on in this area. It is important that we get as much knowledge and information as we possibly can. I return to the first principle that I mentioned—public confidence in the vaccination programme is key, because vaccinations have saved many, many lives.

Gambling

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now resume the debate on gambling. I understand that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) had not quite exhausted his advice to the House when I terminated his previous remarks.

John Thurso: May I reiterate briefly the last point that I made, which is that the tourism, hospitality and gambling industry has given a warm welcome both to the Budd report and to the Government's response? That in turn has excited a keen anticipation that something will actually happen. I suggest to the Minister that having excited this anticipation, the introduction of legislation at the earliest practical moment would be much appreciated by the industry.

George Howarth: I begin by referring the House to my declaration of interest, which is fully and clearly set out in the Register of Members' Interests. There is also great constituency interest. In my constituency, we have the Ladbroke's call centre at Aintree. Vernons Pools are located at Aintree. Vertex, which operates the bet direct call betting service, is at Kirkby in my constituency. Merseyside in general has Littlewoods as a major employer. A number of relevant matters are of direct concern to my constituents.
	First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on having the debate, which has already been significant and important. Secondly, I congratulate him on the excellent way in which he has conducted this part of his brief over the past 12 months. He has earned the trust of all parts of the racing and betting industries. He is listened to with great respect by all sections of an important industry. The same comments apply, of course, to the Secretary of State.
	I apologise to my right hon. Friend because unfortunately I will not be able to stay in the Chamber to hear his wind-up speech. I have a constituency surgery tonight. However, I shall read his reply with great interest next week. I hope that he will recognise that if I am not in my place to hear him, that is not out of any discourtesy. My absence will be due to a constituency necessity.
	I shall try to be brief because I know that other Members hope to speak. However, I shall raise a few points. The first relates to casinos. I welcome the Budd proposals and I welcome the Government's response to them. I welcome also the proposals that are being made for Blackpool being brought to fruition. There is a great deal of potential in revitalising Blackpool on the strength of some of the proposals that are being put forward. It is obviously important that the process that the partnership is going through is completed in a proper manner, and I am sure that it will be.
	Comparisons with Las Vegas are invidious. The idea that Blackpool will suddenly recreate itself as Las Vegas is neither appropriate nor, I suspect, realistic. None the less, there is something that can be done that will be for the benefit both of the people of Blackpool and those who want to operate casinos. There will also be benefit for those who want to make use of the facilities. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) referred to the tourist industry.
	It is important that if there is to be an extension of casinos—the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a similar point—we should be cautious and careful about the way in which we do so, especially in high streets, small towns and areas where there is currently no record of casinos. I am mindful of the point that the hon. Gentleman made—others have echoed it—that a rapid increase in the number of casinos would almost certainly suck in some inappropriate sources of investment. No matter how well developed the regulatory framework was, it would be difficult to prevent that investment taking place.
	I think we all know of the way in which licensed premises and clubs are increasingly being used for money laundering. There is a lot of money that, as it were, is looking for opportunities. I would be cautious, but I accept that there is a need to modernise regulation and also to modernise the primary legislation that covers it.
	There is also the role of magistrates and, as is proposed, local authorities in relation to betting shops. I favour the idea of leaving things as they are. The hon. Member for Ryedale made a similar point. I do not have any in-built prejudice against local authorities. I hardly could, because I was a member of Hyton urban district and then a member of Knowsley borough council for about 14 years before I came into the House. I have parts of Sefton council in my constituency, along with the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). Both councils do an excellent job.
	At the same time, the magistrates already have a body of experience, and they are once removed from the pressures that would inevitably come on local authorities if they had licensing responsibility. I am sure that the authorities would carry it out well, but I think that magistrates courts are probably the most appropriate places for licensing.
	Side betting on the national lottery is important. My right hon. Friend the Minister understandably, and probably rightly, has to be mindful of the responsibility that his Department has to protect the proceeds of the lottery. That is particularly so in terms of the money for good causes that the lottery produces. However, I believe that the issue of betting on the lottery has already, to some extent, been solved through the lottery itself. Camelot is allowed to use hot picks, which is a form of fixed-odds betting on the lottery. That rather destroys the policy. There is some fairness about that. If Camelot is allowed to have fixed-odds betting on the lottery, when in effect it is not supposed to be in that business, it is rather difficult to exclude others from being involved in that market. My right hon. Friend should give that some thought. No doubt he will do so when he decides to read my speech. He is obviously not listening to it.
	There is the question of whether there should be a trust, a voluntary operation between bookmakers and other gaming interests, a voluntary levy or some form of compulsory arrangement. First, as did the hon. Member for Ryedale, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the excellent work that has been done by Gamcare. There is probably an arrangement to be worked out. If talks take place in good faith on all sides, I believe that he could come to an arrangement that would be to the benefit of everyone concerned. I urge him to take that approach. The implication of that is that he does not close his mind to other possibilities that may be put to him. We all agree on what we want the outcome to be, and it is a matter of how we get there. I believe that there is a way forward, without spelling it out today, that could be of some significance.
	I move on to jackpot machines. I have some knowledge, having had some responsibilities for that area when I was a junior Minister in the Home Office.
	I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Budd report's recommendation that betting shops should be allowed to have jackpot machines. I do not think that there is much opposition to that idea—certainly not in this House, nor, I suspect, in another place. As my right hon. Friend does not envisage introducing primary legislation until 2003–04, I urge him to consider whether that change could be made by a statutory instrument such as an order. I know from experience that secondary legislation on such matters can be a somewhat fraught process, but as there is widespread support for the proposal, I think that it could be used in this case.
	I have here a letter from Littlewoods Leisure, which, as I said earlier, has considerable importance in my constituency; I suspect that other Members may have had a similar letter. For the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Minister, I shall read out a small section of it. Richard Boardley, Littlewoods director of games and lotteries, writes:
	"I would also hope that . . . the Government resist attempts by the National Lottery operator to water down the Budd recommendations, as far as they relate to free and fair competition across the gambling industry. Whilst we all want the National Lottery to be successful, this must not be at the continued expense of other competitors. You are already acutely aware of how much damage the lottery has inflicted on our Littlewoods pools business."
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to that point, not least because Littlewoods is still a large employer on Merseyside, and has a long and honourable record of operating fairly and properly.
	I shall now say a little about the public's attitude towards gambling in general. Hon. Members have already talked about the old days, and when I was a child, there was an illegal unlicensed bookmaker called Mr. Dunn at the corner of the square where I lived. He operated from a somewhat rundown caravan, from which he ostensibly sold things like a quarter of tea and a pound of sugar, but really he was taking bets.
	Things moved on and betting became legal, but even then—[Interruption.] It did not become legal for Mr. Dunn. Even then, there was a slightly unsavoury aspect to betting. All of us—including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—probably have betting shops in our constituencies, and the whole atmosphere of those shops is entirely different from what it was even five or 10 years ago. They are more open and cleaner, and a lot of information and technology is used. We also see more and more women comfortably using betting shops now, and I welcome that.
	I suspect that the figures from the last month or so will bear out the fact that an increasing number of younger people are now betting on football results, always on fixed odds, in a more flexible way than the football pools used to allow for. Typically, they bet on who will score the first goal, or what the score at half time or full time will be. Indeed, I had a few such bets on the World cup myself—but sadly, like many of my other betting experiences, they did not pay any dividends.
	Having placed their bets in a betting shop in the morning or telephoned them through to one of the many telephone betting services, punters can now spend a pleasant Saturday afternoon sitting in front of the television. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, betting is part of the leisure industry now, and leisure can just as well be taken at home as on somebody else's premises.
	My right hon. Friend is therefore right to want to bring the legislation up to date, and to recognise not only the economic importance of the industry but the extent to which it is now an integral part of our leisure industry.

Paul Goodman: I expect that you will be familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with Sellar and Yeatman's "1066 and All That", in which they divide the participants in the English civil war into:
	"The Cavaliers (Wrong but Wromantic) and the Roundheads (Right but Repulsive)."
	In writing in that way, the authors were not judging who was right and who was wrong in the English civil war—a subject that I shall not discuss now, because I would rightly be ruled out of order—but highlighting certain attitudes and temperaments.
	So far as alcohol consumption, cigarette consumption, the legalisation of illegal drugs and gambling are concerned, people tend to divide pretty neatly into cavaliers and roundheads. The roundheads tend to argue that alcohol duties should be hiked, cigarette advertising banned completely, smoking banned in public, a war on drugs prosecuted vigorously, and all gambling curtailed. The cavaliers tend to argue that alcohol duties should be slashed, cigarette advertisement warnings removed altogether, all drugs legalised—whether hard or not—and a category A slot machine placed in every pub.
	In the briefings for this debate, the roundheads tended to argue, as Gamblers Anonymous does, the severe view that gambling is a form of mental disorder, and that it is a particular danger to children—a point with which I have some sympathy. Naturally, the cavaliers tended to maintain that, in a free society, everyone should be free to do as they please, without excessive state interference. If I have to come down on a particular side on these matters, I would prefer to be "Wrong but Wromantic", rather than "Right but Repulsive". The conclusion that I draw from the Budd report and the Government's White Paper is that they, too, come down on that side.
	The nonconformist culture out of which disapproval of gambling came—the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) mentioned it in the context of his childhood experiences—has more than begun to die out, and we now have a different kind of culture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, the Government are broadly right to concentrate on loosening restrictions in premises that exist largely for the purposes of gambling, and to be wary of further liberalisation in premises that do not exist primarily for that purpose.
	The presumption behind the Government's approach—it is one that the Opposition share—seems to be that the state should tolerate, and even encourage, gambling up to a certain point, perhaps because it can help to educate people about finding the right balance between risk and safety. Some risk is good—that is why Ministers and Opposition spokesmen and women often refer to risk takers in an approving way. If exercised moderately, gambling can help to educate people about risk. If I go to Newmarket, see that there is a horse in the 3.15 that happens to be called Duty Whip's Fancy, and discover that it has good form—

Richard Caborn: Total waste of money.

Paul Goodman: I may have to pass on the Minister's remark to his duty Whip, who is absent.

Stephen O'Brien: Duty Whip's Fancy has to be a fine filly.

Paul Goodman: I knew that I was taking a risk in lending the horse such an appellation. However, if, after finding that the horse is on good form and running on ground that suits it, I put a bet on it and win, I have learned something about the balance between risk and safety.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is not in her place, but she spoke effectively about a scam, to use the word that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale rightly bestowed on it. If women get caught up in such schemes, the risk is clearly unacceptable. That is the reason for the number of powerful inhibitors in society against undue risk.
	I shall risk one more general remark before making some specific points. Excessive gambling can undermine the work ethic and create a get rich quick mentality. If that mentality abounds, it can eventually undermine hard work, thrift, diligence, persistence, enterprise and everything that contributes to wealth creation.
	I shall descend from the ballet of philosophical abstractions to specific points. Before a Labour Member rises to make the point, I appreciate that a Conservative Government introduced the national lottery. However, I am not a full-blooded enthusiast for three main reasons. First, without being a killjoy, I believe that in its early days the lottery contributed to encouraging a get rich quick mentality among some of those who indulged in it. As we all know, it is hard to get rich quick without inheriting money. That consequence of the lottery was not good.
	Secondly, the lottery did much to nationalise large elements of charitable giving. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made the point indirectly. It is worth taking note of the figures. The lottery accounts for 65 per cent. of all gambling; £7 billion was spent on gambling in the United Kingdom in 1998–99. Those are large sums. By changing the balance of charitable giving, the lottery has contributed to turning charities into lobbyists because they have to go to the Government and specific boards to ask for money. They shape their bids according to the prejudices and fancies of those who make the judgments. That is not a good effect, to put it mildly.
	Thirdly, the lottery has contributed, albeit indirectly, towards damaging the relationship between the person who gives and the charity that receives the money. I am therefore rather sceptical about the national lottery.
	I appreciate that the lottery is here to stay, but I echo my hon. Friend's point, and some of the contributions of Labour Members, that we should have a level playing field. He argued persuasively that the lottery should be included under one gambling board. I urge the Minister to consider carefully my hon. Friend's point about society lotteries and the effect that the national lottery has had on them.
	A recommendation in the Budd report suggested that premises licensing should remain a local function, exercised solely by local authorities. The White Paper says:
	"The Government does, however, accept that it would not be appropriate to give local authorities unfettered discretion to determine whether or not a premises licence should be issued or on the conditions attached to licences, such as those relating to opening hours."

John Greenway: indicated assent

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend nods, and, indeed, he backed up that point in his speech. I hope that I will not arouse his ire by saying that although I am sure that the Government are right to make that point, it has been a feature of British government over the past 30 years or so that the powers of local government have been reduced under successive Administrations. That happened under Conservative Governments in the 1980s and 1990s and is happening even more extensively now. I urge the Government to give local authorities as much leeway as they reasonably can. If local authorities are not considered fit to have some hand in licensing arrangements, it is hard to know what the Government would consider them fit for.
	I want to refer again to the point raised by Labour Members and my hon. Friend about the dangers of illicit money getting into the gambling trade. One strong argument against the complete legalisation of all drugs is that, far from taking money out of the hands of the dealers, dealers would muscle in on legitimate business. Some historians argue that that happened after the end of prohibition in America. I am not arguing for prohibition but simply noting that point of view. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East that the Government should be properly wary of that happening, as I think they are.
	In an article in The Guardian—I sleep with a copy of the paper under my pillow, naturally—Andrew Burnett, a leisure analyst at Merrill Lynch—

Stephen O'Brien: It saves reading it.

Paul Goodman: I will not quarrel with my hon. Friend about that.
	In this article, which I commend to the House, in the unlikely event that the editor of The Guardian reads Hansard, Andrew Burnett writes that although French industry revenue doubled within two years of liberalising measures there, more than 50 people have been murdered in the past three years in what he describes as a bitter gangland squabble that the Interior Ministry believes is linked to control of the nation's slot machines or—I am sorry for my pronunciation—"bandits manchots", as they are known. My hon. Friend nods again. Mr. Burnett writes that the violence that is centred around France's estimated 6,000 illegal machines has included bombings in Aix-en-Provence and shootings on the Champs-Elysées. I am sure that the Government are properly wary of what could happen if the worst fears of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East were realised.
	The British Horseracing Board has made a point to the Government about alcohol, casinos and betting in pubs and clubs. It asks why, if alcohol is to be allowed in casinos—we do not know what the Government will include in their Bill if legislation is forthcoming—betting is not permitted in pubs and clubs. There are obvious safety arguments against that, but I urge the Government to reconsider the matter.
	We look forward to the proposals in the Queen's Speech in the autumn, and I wish the Minister luck in his discussions with the usual channels and in ensuring that there is a Bill in due course.

Rosemary McKenna: I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on pyramid gifting schemes; they are scams, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out, and should be outlawed. I also ally myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso): we shall want to follow up the matter and as a fellow member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport I hope that we will receive a memorandum on it. We may not be able to include it in the current report, but we may be able to issue it as an addition.
	I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and look forward to the proposed Bill, which I hope will be introduced soon.
	We must realise that gambling is an industry and that the people employed in it play an important part in their local economy. Gambling is also a modern leisure pursuit. As our disposable income has increased, we have started to see gambling in a different light. Shopping is now a leisure pursuit, enjoyed by many, many people—it even forms part of the tourism industry; but just because some people, unfortunately, become shopaholics, we would not attempt to ban it—nor should we react to gambling in that way. However, there are serious concerns about addiction that we must take on board.
	We need modern legislation to simplify the rules and regulations so that they can be easily understood. I was especially glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport said that modernisation would go hand in hand with protection. We cannot have one without the other and I strongly support calls for both.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) talked about modern betting shops. That reminded me that when I was a small child my grandfather used to visit an illegal betting shop in the back close of a rundown building near our house. It was common knowledge that the police arrested only the young men—the bookies paid the fines—while the elderly gentlemen were ushered out and went off to a friendly local house for a cup of tea until the bookie could open up again a couple of hours later. What a huge change we have seen since then. It is great that people feel that they can take part in gambling and, as has been pointed out, women are also able to participate. I welcome those changes.
	I want to speak first on the role of local authorities. I disagree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross: local authorities have an extremely important role to play in local life, and I disagree with the claim that the Government have removed powers from local government. I was involved in local government throughout the entire former Conservative Administration and I could spend all day listing the powers that they removed from local government. I shall not bore the House by doing so, but remind hon. Members that the Government are beginning to change their attitude to local government. In certain parts of Scotland, they are considering giving local government powers of general competence—I should like to see that happening throughout the country.
	It is absolutely crucial for local government—all local authorities—to bring its local knowledge to bear on local issues. I sat on a licensing board where we granted and removed liquor licences, and local knowledge was crucial. That board also gave members of the local community an opportunity to express their views. I have no qualms about saying that local councillors are crucial to such communication. Their role is absolutely right.
	Sometimes the board was tempted by the people who applied for a licence. A local butcher came before us, saying that he thought it would be very appropriate to be able to buy a bottle of wine at his butcher's shop. He said, "Wouldn't it be nice if you were on your way home one evening and you thought, 'I will go into the butcher's and buy a really nice piece of fillet steak'"—Scottish fillet steak, of course—"and then I could offer you a piece of passion cake and a bottle of claret?" I do not know whether that was intended as a bribe to board members, but we reminded him that we thought that the right shop was called a supermarket. That undermined his argument about a one-stop butcher's shop.
	Local democracy is crucial to the role of local government, which places a democratic overlay on the decision-making process. All aspects of gambling should be subject to local government control.
	I am sure that we all share the concerns that have been expressed to me about the misery that gambling addiction can cause. Particular concerns have been raised about online gambling and the use of credit cards. I understand that it is very difficult to control such gambling, but we must try to find ways to help those who get into trouble. However, the industry must contribute more towards offering help and counselling to those who get into difficulties.
	Children must be protected, and I look forward to reading what the Bill says about that, but I have no doubt that responsible parents always ensure that any gambling is done responsibly. We all gambled at the seaside—it was part of our holiday—but I accept that we need clear rules and clear statements about which machines children may use. As a former teacher, I know that children gamble on everything, from a game of marbles to football. It is harmless fun to them and they do not know that they are gambling. How that impacts on their home and whether it leads to addiction is absolutely unknown; no research is available. Some well-founded research would be very welcome to help inform any future debate on that issue. It would gain the industry a great deal of credit if it were willing to support some independent well-founded research on the issue.
	On gaming machines, like every other Member of the House, I was inundated with letters from various clubs. My constituency has several social clubs and a couple of miners' welfare clubs, which do tremendous work in the local community in support of local charities. The local communities would be completely undermined if those clubs could not have gaming machines on their premises. Therefore I was delighted when the Minister said that he would respond positively to their representations and that the Government would continue to allow them to have gaming machines. We would all welcome that.
	I welcome the Government's response to the review. Like other hon. Members, I do not consider myself a gambler, but I do buy lottery tickets, and like every other Member of Parliament I cannot possibly refuse to buy raffle tickets at all the local events to which we are invited. However, I was once forced to take part in a very important piece of gambling that was not seen as gambling, when I had to cut cards with the leader of the opposition in a hung council to see who would be the provost—or in English terms, the mayor—of the town for four years. I drew the king of diamonds, at which point there was silence throughout the room, until the leader of the then opposition drew the eight of clubs. As a result of that act of gambling, I had to chair a hung council for four years.

Paul Goodman: Could the hon. Lady tell us which were trumps?

Rosemary McKenna: Well, I think that I came up trumps.
	Gambling can take many different forms and, very often, people do not realise that they are gambling, because in many circumstances it can be harmless fun. I look forward to the Bill.

Boris Johnson: I apologise to the House for being slightly late this morning. I took a gamble on public transport that did not pay off.
	I want to declare that although I have gambled many times, I have never won until recently, when, like the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna), I took part in a raffle. However, I discovered that one of the difficulties of being a Member of Parliament is that one is not allowed to win the raffle and that, if an MP wins the raffle, he or she has to give back the prize.
	We have been presented with an interesting and very good set of proposals. I want to begin by quoting paragraph 7.1 of "A safe bet for success", which the Government have published. It states:
	"In the Government's view the law should no longer incorporate or reflect any assumption that gambling is an activity which is objectionable and which people should have no encouragement to pursue."
	Well, there we are. That is a very handsome statement by the Government, who are about to ban tobacco advertising and have imposed all sorts of restrictions in a massive exercise on alcohol, travelling by motor car and all sorts of other pleasures, but no one could call this a nannying or puritan measure. In the words of the casino industry, that statement could have been written by the casino industry, or so we are told.
	We have the prospect of a significant change to our landscape and culture. As I look ahead and as I read the report and the Government's response, I seem to see neon strips flashing away, cocktail dresses and all manner of things like that. You and I will be able to walk in off the street into one of these new casinos, Mr. Deputy Speaker, without membership—we will not have to be members for 24 hours before we slap down our credit cards on the bar and get lots of chips. Alcohol will be provided, and there will be live entertainment of all kinds.
	It is possible to imagine that, in the near future, some of our duller seaside towns will answer to the description of fleshpots. Frankly, I welcome that. If that is the intention, it is perhaps not wholly uncivilised. I think it unlikely, however, that all these new casinos will be cultivated places, full of black-tied croupiers and James Bond-style girls, draping themselves over people's shoulders as they go into the final rubber with Le Chiffre, playing vingt et un. They will not all be high-class establishments.
	It is more likely that there will be a great profusion of establishments with wall-to-wall, winking one- eyed—[Interruption]—one-armed bandits. [Interruption.] Possibly one-eyed, too, and people will robotically feed coins into the slots in a state of narcosis, as that is the prevailing experience of places with such liberalisation, such as Las Vegas, which I have not visited, or Surfers Paradise in Australia.
	That is why I very much agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and several other hon. Members about the necessity to have a strong regulatory framework, and why the policing of this proliferation of new establishments must be very careful. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who reminded us of how gambling went wrong in the 1960s. If we are to see an expansion, it is important that we should control it and be very careful. Let us be in no doubt that there will be a great increase in gambling. The Government will raise much more revenue from gambling, but there is also a risk that more low-life types will be associated with it, and that there will be more money laundering as well as all the other criminal problems that have been mentioned.
	I stress that I do not disapprove of gambling. I welcome the Government's cavalier, romantic approach to the subject. I echo the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe about education in risk. Gambling is a valuable utensil of public education. That point could also have been adduced in the earlier statement, which you did not hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the MMR debate. The public have been stampeded away from using the MMR vaccine by a false appreciation of the public risks involved—that may be a heterodox view from the Conservative Benches. Consequently, we run the risk of a measles outbreak.
	Understanding risk is important not just for public health policy but for capitalism. It is integral to capitalism. How did the late Jimmy Goldsmith make his first fortune? He bunked off school one afternoon and went to Windsor races. It is important that people understand, contrary to the title of the Government's response, that there is no such thing as a safe bet, as those who follow the stock markets and who are worried about their pensions will appreciate. On the other hand, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
	It would be a great shame if the proposed measures did anything to damage the viability of bingo parlours. I recently played bingo for many hours in south London, wholly unsuccessfully. It struck me as a game not just of chance but of considerable skill. It was played in an atmosphere of great charm and conviviality, and it would be a shame if, through any of the proposed measures, hard gambling were introduced into those very nice parlours. I hope that that will not be the case. I am reassured by some of the remarks that I have heard from bingo associations that they think that will not be the case. I notice, however, that the Government's intention is to liberalise bingo parlours.
	I am baffled by the proposal to reduce not just the stakes but the prizes available to those of us who enjoy playing the crane machines in seaside arcades. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you had spent a considerable amount of time trying to win a prize on one of those very difficult machines by grabbing a watch or a fluffy toy, you should be entitled, at the end of all of that, to a seriously up-market fluffy toy worth up to £8, or to a watch that will last for more than a year. I see no reason why the Government are cutting the maximum value of those prizes to £5—it is pointless nannying. I hope that the Minister will tell us why they are doing that, and why they intend not to do it after all.
	With that serious criticism, I generally welcome the provisions outlined in the Government's response. I prefer to take a punt on it.

Gordon Marsden: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). His speech was an extraordinary cornucopia of subjects. I share his views about grab machines. I used to play them with great fondness as a child in Blackpool. His vision included references to James Bond and cocktail dresses. I think that he meant cocktail lounges, but perhaps it was a Freudian slip.
	As the Member of Parliament for Blackpool, South, I have followed all aspects and all stages of the review with great interest. It has obvious implications for Blackpool, and several hon. Members have already mentioned them. It is right to make the point that many of the broader entertainment and leisure implications of the liberalisation proposals and the Government's response, which I welcome, could affect seaside and coastal towns more generally. I have been made well aware of that point in my position as president of the British Resorts Association and as chair of a Labour Back-Bench group of seaside and coastal Members of Parliament. Members of all parties representing seaside and coastal towns and local authorities in such towns have mounted a vigorous and rightly penetrating analysis of the issues involved and the Government's response.
	Like other Members, I shall refer to amusement machines and gaming. The hon. Member for Henley entertained us with a vision of one-eyed bandits but, like the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) did in the Select Committee, I remember them as one-armed bandits. We are probably all from the same generation. The serious point is that such machines and grab or crane machines have been an integral part of the fabric of a seaside holiday for a long time. Therefore, the Government's acknowledgement of that in their response to Budd has been extremely welcome.
	The Government have struck the right balance and noted the distinction that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) also drew about the important role played by social and working men's clubs in charitable activities generally. Like other hon. Members, I have received representations on that point and I shall refer to one made by the Blackpool No. 1 working men's club and institute in Bloomfield road in my constituency. It said:
	"Members club subsidise social activities, sport, music and entertainment. They raise money for charity. They serve their members and the interests of ordinary citizens."
	That is absolutely correct, so I pay tribute to the Government for their response and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his robust and sensible approach to the issue.
	Perhaps we view everything through rose-tinted spectacles, but I have a final point about crane machines. It seems to be more difficult to capture the fluffy toy or the watch than it did when I was a child. However, when I was a child and went to Blackpool, the objects may have been rather smaller and easier to grab. In fact, several small toys and novelties adorn the Marsden Christmas tree each year.

John Pugh: Although we on are the issue of fluffy toys—a significant one for seaside resorts—does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not in any way related to problems of gambling addiction as dealt with in the Budd report? People are not addicted to fluffy toys. If they are, it is not a problem with which we should unduly concern ourselves.

Gordon Marsden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but he has not had the opportunity to examine the insides of my cupboards and closets. Therefore, he cannot be sure that he is correct about fluffy toys. However, I accept that he has made a legitimate point.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), have referred to non-monetary prize amusement machines and expressed concerns about the proposal to reduce the maximum price of play and to reduce the maximum value of the prize. I shall quote a letter that I have received from Blackpool pleasure beach, which many people will have visited and will know is part of the history of popular culture and entertainment in Blackpool. Blackpool Pleasure Beach Ltd. makes the point that, if the proposed reduction were introduced,
	"These machines would simply not be viable from either customers or operators perspective"
	over a long period. It continues:
	"These machines are hugely popular with families and could never be seen as a gambling product."
	The letter goes on to make the interesting suggestion:
	"The answer is to have within the amusement machine Category D band a subcategory of machines that pay out only prizes and not cash. This subcategory should be allowed to maintain price of play and prizes at current levels".
	That is a sensible and thoughtful suggestion which the Government might consider.
	The point is also made:
	"The establishment by the Government of an amusement machine (Category D) is a major step forward."
	All those who have seen the Government's response would agree. However, Blackpool Pleasure Beach also says that it is not reasonable indefinitely to freeze the stake and prize levels for those machines. Some review mechanism for that process is suggested, and I would agree with that.
	I turn to the main thrust, certainly as far as a town such as Blackpool is concerned, of the Budd report and the Government's response: the implications for resort casinos of the major deregulation and liberalisation of casinos. I suspect—I pay tribute to the publicity activities of Leisure Parcs Ltd. and the Blackpool challenge partnership in this respect—that there is hardly anyone in the land who does not know that Blackpool has been posted as the new Las Vegas. However, as at least one hon. Member has rightly said today, if we are to cross to the United States, there are other and perhaps better analogies to take into account. I shall mention two: Atlantic City and Biloxi, both of which, curiously, are the subject of films. Perhaps we can take heart from that for Blackpool.
	The important point about Atlantic City and Biloxi is that they have achieved a degree of regeneration, having been significant resort centres that had lost a lot of their traditional market. Regardless of whether the entertainment that resort casinos might produce in Blackpool or elsewhere will be literally of Las Vegas stature in due course, the crucial question for us to examine is how we regenerate seaside towns such as Blackpool through that process. That is why we need to put four square the possible benefits of deregulation for local communities.
	I sent a memorandum of evidence to the excellent Select Committee inquiry, which is still going on. Obviously, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and I have talked to and heard the views of a vast array of people in and around the town since the proposals were first mooted. I said in the memorandum that one finds a small, quite vociferous lobby of people who are significantly opposed, mainly on principle, to the expansion and introduction of resort casinos. I accept, particularly as far as the Methodist Church and others are concerned, the principal basis of that objection and the concerns that flow from it, although I do not necessarily agree with it.
	Another group of people have assumed, perhaps almost in a Pavlovian way, that resort casinos would be the answer to all our prayers and that the sooner that we get them the better. However, the vast majority of people, groups and associations in Blackpool—significantly including the vast majority of hoteliers, guest house owners, and so on—take the view that there could be great benefit from resort casinos but that we need to see the detail of proposals. That raises the problem of how the local community can benefit directly via a levy or hypothecation.
	There has been much loose talk about emulating what Atlantic City has done, but it is not possible for us to do the same thing. The structures are entirely different. New Jersey and Atlantic City have a federal structure. We do not have a method by which we can use hypothecation in the same way or enjoy the control of funding that individual states can exercise. It might be that on the back of regional development, with possible elected assemblies in the north-west and elsewhere, there will be more scope for such a levy in five to 10 years time. However, we must consider what we can do now.
	A local authority and the people making the proposals could reach a voluntary, though legally enforceable, agreement to the same effect. By earmarking a percentage of turnover, profit or a mixture based on a bottom line account, an annual payment could be made for community use from the income generated by such activities. That is a possibility, but the proposals in the Government's draft local government Bill for business improvement districts might provide a mechanism for a more structured approach. That view was shared by the leader of Blackpool council, Councillor Roy Fisher, who is also the chair of Blackpool challenge partnership. In written evidence to the Select Committee he said:
	"We believe that some form of the legislation already going through the parliamentary process for business improvement districts would provide this without the need for hypothecation or a levy within the gaming legislation."
	That is crucial for the people of Blackpool. All the surveys by the local newspaper and others have shown that the ability to produce a direct tangible benefit from resort casinos for local community projects is crucial to securing the support not just of the section of the town involved in tourism, but across the whole community, including the many people who do not have a direct interest in, or daily contact with, tourism.
	The Bishop of Blackburn took the same view both in evidence to the Select Committee and in statements elsewhere. He is broadly in favour of the proposals for resort casinos and rightly draws our attention to the social concerns, but he also makes the point that we need a direct regenerative mechanism, as well as the other indirect benefits that might result from that.
	We need something that will benefit local communities, but resort casinos also have to be seen in the context of developing a much bigger leisure package and providing greater opportunities for people who visit seaside towns such as Blackpool. That is the basis on which they will be welcome. As other hon. Members said, they will not be welcome if there is the same "pile-'em-high" collection of machines in gaming sheds, which is what has happened in Australia.
	Professor Peter Collins, director of the centre for the study of gambling and commercial gaming at the university of Salford, also gave evidence to the Select Committee. He recently produced a report on the issue and said:
	"In respect of choosing between 'many-small' and 'few-big' with respect to new casinos the arguments from minimising negative social impacts all tell in favour of 'few-big' . . . Gambling tax policy can provide both some general benefits and some benefits targeted at the needy and least advantaged. The Lottery Good Causes Fund seeks to do this. However, in relation to casinos the judgement which government makes on this issue will be crucial because the few-big scenario permits, and the many-small scenario does not, the siting and structure of casino projects so that they do most for those communities where need is greatest."
	That argument is supported by the Blackpool challenge partnership and in the evidence to the Select Committee which cited the example of Australia, where the total liberalisation of the gaming laws led to the proliferation of high pay-out casino slot machines, which in turn made a significant contribution to increasing gambling addiction and social deprivation. The Government need to take that point on board when considering the detail of this matter.
	Hon. Members have spoken of the importance of having a planning process that is flexible; for example, through the section 106 system, community benefits could arise from the development of resort casinos. If the process is not flexible, it will not be possible for local authorities, which make difficult decisions about planning applications, easily to ask for some of the benefits, such as education or health facilities, which may be constructed as part of a planning agreement for a resort casino.
	There are weaknesses in the present planning process which need to be addressed. Again I draw on the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Blackpool challenge partnership. It said:
	"Because of its history Blackpool already has more than 30 buildings that would not require planning permission to become casinos. The only control we could exercise over these buildings would be the granting of a licence . . .
	In order to take advantage of development opportunities . . . we propose that in conjunction with a review of the legislation a new planning use class order is established for casinos."
	The partnership continued:
	"Planning powers would also give the opportunity to provide a clear definition for a resort casino that is tied to anywhere having the ability to host large numbers of gaming machines. This provision would then in turn be tied to a requirement for leisure, hotel and conference use that would then go a little further than simply the size of the gaming floor."
	I believe that a figure of 5,000 machines is suggested. That needs to be considered in any legislation that is introduced.
	There has been much talk in Blackpool about the town having pilot status in any resort casino process. The subject has been brought up with the Select Committee and the Minister. If that were possible, it would, in many ways, be desirable. It is all very well leaving these matters to the market, and it may well be that the market would eventually sift out those operations that did not conform to the broad model of the all-singing, all-dancing, family oriented casino which I and many others would consider the focus of resort regeneration. However, we do not need years of upheaval and eyesores while it does so. That point needs to be taken on board, whether there is a formal pilot status or whether we increase the ability of local authorities to take a holistic approach to planning, or preferably both.
	Hon. Members may not be aware that it was intended that Blackpool tower would be one of a number of towers to be built all round Britain in the 1880s and 1890s. There was a sort of franchise system, and Blackpool took up the idea and ran with it. It may give us an idea of what we could do if we did not have a formal pilot scheme. Blackpool could, by default, be that pilot.
	There is, however, an urgent need for Government action and for legislation. I am pleased about what has already been done by order, and I welcome the Department's commitment to the fight for a slot in the Queen's Speech. If planning authorities and bidders want to move ahead, it is important that we have early legislation.
	As always, there must be safeguards. The £3 million for the Gambling Trust, as mentioned in the Budd report, and the initiatives that have been proposed by the British Casino Trust and BACTA are important. We must protect vulnerable young people, but it is important to remember what we are aiming for: a resort where perhaps only 10 or 15 per cent. of the floor space would be for gaming. It is a leisure experience, not primarily a gaming experience, that those of us in resort towns such as Blackpool seeking regeneration are looking for. The gaming sheds that we have seen in Australia would not provide that.
	I want to make it clear that Blackpool is not putting all its eggs in the resort casinos basket. That has been made clear by the challenge partnership, the local council and a number of business leaders. There is an enormous amount of regeneration going on in the town and the challenge partnership is looking at a number of schemes. There are ideas for a "snow dome" and for "storm city". It is important to recognise that Blackpool, like other seaside towns, is already doing things to regenerate itself.
	We have had major new art installations on the promenade and we had a modern statue called "Desire", which was supposed to embody the sexual frisson of a weekend in Blackpool—[Laughter]—and which came under the beady eye of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) during the general election campaign. We also have the world's largest glitterball, and a sea organ that will play various tunes in accompaniment with the tides and which is to be installed in the autumn. Future generations need not fear for lack of inspiration for new versions of "Albert and the Lion".
	The winter gardens have had a major overhaul. The tower room and the ballroom, where generations of dancing couples glided elegantly, have been revamped. We have the Grand theatre, and major and elegant sea defences with ocean liner railings. We have a plan for an environmental centre and a solarium. There are major upgrades of the light rail system, based on the trams, and there is some diversification.
	I could go on; no doubt Blackpool council's tourism department would like me to do so, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order—quite rightly. In giving that list, I wanted to focus on why resort casinos are potentially beneficial. In Blackpool, we need a big bang. We need a big initiative that will carry through all the other things that I have mentioned.
	Like so many seaside towns, behind the facade of the wonderful experiences that people have on holiday, at party conferences and the like, Blackpool has problems. There is a decline in visitor numbers; we are the 32nd most deprived area of the UK; we have all the difficulties associated with seasonal employment, traditionally low pay and low employment; we have all the demands of demography, in terms of having a larger than average number of younger people and a larger than average number of older people, which puts enormous pressure on services in the town. We have all those things and we need to find a regenerative mechanism.
	Of all the proposals on the table, the regenerative mechanism via resort casinos appears to me and to many others to be the best bet. The devil is in the detail and we need to get the details right. That I why I have dwelt at some length on the needs in terms of planning and a proper regulatory framework. This is not an impossible dream, although there are those who have been sceptical about talk of Pharaoh's Palace and various other possibilities for Blackpool on the back of resort casinos. It is worth remembering that we had the same sort of doomsayers at the turn of the last century when Alderman Bickerstaffe bought up the tower company's shares for Blackpool council.
	If we are to have resort casinos in Blackpool, we want to ensure that it maintains the affection in which it is held and its almost mythic status in popular culture. I believe that we can do that. We can have a new golden mile and a new town of adventure, and there will still be all the excitements and the £1 for the first person to spot the tower from the train. However, that must be built on solid business, solid regulation, solid benefits for residents and tourists alike, and a recognition of the need for any liberalisation and deregulation of gaming to include concern for the most vulnerable.

Stephen Ladyman: I very much enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), and I agree with his comments about amusement machines. I shall return to that subject in a moment. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) also made an entertaining speech. I look forward to a racing page appearing in The Spectator at some point in the future.

Boris Johnson: There already is one.

Stephen Ladyman: Is there? That shows how often I read The Spectator. The only advice that I would give the hon. Gentleman is never to ask the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) to write it, although I share his view that the names of horses are significant in terms of whether they win. My most recent experience in that regard took place during the run-up to the 2001 general election. As a lifelong Liverpool supporter and a Labour candidate, when I saw that a horse called Red Marauder was running in the grand national, I thought that that was clearly a sign from a benevolent God, did a considerable amount of business, and won a packet on it.
	I was interested to hear about my hon. Friends' experiences of betting prior to the degree of liberalisation that we have today. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) talked about Mr. Dunn taking bets in his caravan. My own experience relates to my granddad, who in the late 1950s and early 1960s would take me for walks during which he would try to find a telephone. When he got through to whoever was on the other end, he would say, "Hello, this is Lucifer." I always thought that rather strange, because mum always called him Jack, but of course he was on the phone to his bookmaker. For a man with almost no hair, he spent a considerable amount of time at his barber's. It was only many years later that I realised that the barber collected his money for him. There is a moral to the story, which is that if people are not allowed to gamble legally, they will do it illegally. As far as I am aware, my granddad and his barber did nobody any harm by having their bets.
	Growing up in Liverpool in a part of town that nowadays would be given a euphemism such as "facing serious challenges", I was aware of the dice games that were played on pavements outside pubs. Landlords could lose their licences if they allowed gambling in their pubs, so they invariably did not, and the men would take their dice games out on to the pavements. Even to my young eyes, the piles of money on those pavements were impressive. I suspect that many a family's housekeeping was lost in those dice games. My right hon. Friend the Minister proposes in his White Paper to make gambling debts legally enforceable and to repeal the Gaming Act 1845. Hiding behind that Act if one did not want to pay the gambling debts incurred in one of those dice games was probably not a wise step. If one did not pay those debts, one would be introduced to somebody with a name like Harry "Eat Your Giblets" Smith, who tended not to be an expert in Victorian jurisprudence. One would certainly not be allowed to argue that one's debt was not legally enforceable.
	I tell those stories simply to reinforce the fact that we must have an environment in which gambling can take place in a proper and controlled way. That said, I find myself somewhat disoriented, because I seem to be more in favour of deregulating the sector than most other hon. Members—even the hon. Member for Henley. I never thought that I would find myself in that position.
	We still have a tendency in this place to be patronising about gambling. We can make decisions about whether we gamble, but others might be led down the path of vice and error, so they need guidance and controls. I suspect that if we were to try telling our constituents that we know better than they about how they should spend their leisure money, we would probably get pretty short shrift from them. We must be careful before we advance such arguments.
	The market is an important influence in deciding what works in a gambling sense. I entirely take the point about keeping crime out of the gambling sector. I am aware that the Gaming Acts, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, were designed to get the Krays out of the gambling industry. They have worked extremely well and we dare not make the error of allowing that sort of influence back into the system. However, we must be aware of what has happened in the past year or so in places such as Paris, where draconian measures have been taken to limit the availability of gaming machines.
	In Paris, people now have to buy one-armed bandits from illegal suppliers. There was a report in a newspaper that I read towards the end of last year where a cafe owner made the mistake of buying his one-armed bandit from the wrong bunch of crooks. He was subsequently found dead. The pathologist was reported as saying that there were so many bullets in the cafe owner's body that he could not count them. We cannot allow that sort of system to recur.
	I am delighted with the efforts that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made in pulling the White Paper together. The Budd report was a good start. I have been extremely critical of some parts of it and have described some of them as barmy, and I do not withdraw my comments one iota. However, my right hon. Friend has done a remarkable job of sorting out the good parts of the report, of which there were many, from the barmy parts. There are still some things in the report that we need to be careful about and to which we should give more thought. That will inevitably happen as we start to produce the legislation that will come forth soon.
	My right hon. Friend says that he is hoping to get the legislation into the 2003–04 Session. I am rather disappointed with that. I would like to see it come forward more quickly. However, if it is to be 2003–04, that at least gives us the opportunity, if I may hint this, of some pre-legislative scrutiny during the next Session. That would help us all to try to iron out any more wrinkles that there might be. The Bill might then have a quick passage through the House late next Session, if parliamentary time were to open up. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we might seek ways of speeding up the process.
	As for the casino sector, I am entirely in favour of the liberalisations that have been set out in the White Paper. There are daft notions of 24-hour rules and not allowing casinos to advertise. It is certainly time that we dealt with these. There is a casino in my constituency. It is an important part of the offering that we make to tourists who come to my constituency. However, we cannot tell any of them about it. Unless they come for longer than 24 hours, they cannot use it. If someone comes to Ramsgate for a long weekend and they do not realise that there is a casino there until Saturday, and they then put in their request to use the casino, they will not be allowed to use it until 24 hours have passed, by which time they are usually on their way home after their weekend. That is nonsense, and it is clearly right to deal with that situation.
	One of the arguments that has struck me, not only in today's debate but more generally, is the suggestion that we should change planning law and make a new class order for casinos. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned that, and I think that it is the right idea. It would deal with many of the worries about casinos flourishing all over the country in all sorts of unsuitable places, because the local planning committee would have a say. I would find that process far more convincing than the 2,000 sq ft rule.
	I can imagine perfectly reasonable opportunities to set up casinos that take up less than 2,000 sq ft; let me give my right hon. Friend some examples. If someone who owns a country house hotel wants to operate a small casino there, and the local authority thinks it a good idea, which would make the business more viable and encourage more people to come to the hotel, what could possibly be wrong with that? Why should we say that people cannot do that unless they provide 2,000 sq ft of gaming space?
	Perhaps it would not be economic to run a small casino in that environment, because of the number of employees needed, and all the safeguards that we are insisting that people build in to casinos—but if some entrepreneur thinks that it would be worth his while to set one up, and the local authority thinks it appropriate, why should we put some daft figure down on a piece of paper and say, "I'm sorry, but you haven't got 2,000 sq ft of gaming space, so we can't let you do it"?
	I fully appreciate that the new gaming commission will need the resources to monitor all the facilities, and will not want lots of small casinos springing up before it has the resources and can inspect the premises. However, there are practical measures to deal with that problem, such as giving the gaming commission the power to alter the square footage rule as it acquires more resources. Alternatively, the rule could say that the development had to have a beneficial effect on the local economy, and that if the gaming commission thought that that criterion was met, it could give a licence for a casino.
	There are practical ways of dealing with all those problems, and I do not think that we should try to interfere in the market as the White Paper suggests and say, "We know best. Casinos should all be the size that we say." One idea is that casinos should all occupy more than 10,000 sq ft. I can understand why someone who believed that the availability of gambling would inevitably lead to people with gambling problems might make such a suggestion. However, as I have already said, I think that that is patronising.
	There are better ways of organising things, one of which is giving local authorities a clear planning power to limit where casinos are sited in their areas. In my seaside constituency, I would want my local authority to encourage the development of more casinos in the tourist areas of our towns, rather than in the high streets. We have a casino on the seafront in Ramsgate, and in the neighbouring constituency of North Thanet there is one in Margate. I certainly would not want to see lots of small casinos flourishing in my local high street—but I trust my local planning committee to make such decisions sensibly if we give it the appropriate powers.
	I am afraid that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South about resort casinos. I do not see how we can argue that Blackpool should be given a competitive advantage over everywhere else that might want a resort casino. I can understand why Blackpool is asking for that. If it is going to invest a lot of money, of course it will take every possible step to get a head start on the competition. I also see why we might not want there to be more than one resort casino in each region—but a resort casino in Margate would have no impact on the viability of one in Blackpool or Brighton, because they would be operating in different markets.
	I do not know whether a resort casino will prove viable. In this country, a different financial model backs casinos from that in the United States. In America, casinos work on very high volumes and low margins, but in this country they tend to work on much lower volumes and higher margins. The high-density gambling of American resort casinos can be achieved only if we adopt their model. Perhaps some people think that they can make that model work in this country, and if they do, good luck to them. If they want to invest their money and have a try, there is no reason for me to stand in their way, but such entrepreneurs should be entitled to look around the country to find the best opportunities—regardless of whether they are in Blackpool or in my patch. There is no merit in the idea that we should restrict a trial to Blackpool.
	In gambling debates such as this, my first love is the campaign to protect the seaside arcade industry, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for acknowledging my role in that campaign. Indeed, most of the barmy arguments in the Budd report related to that industry. My one criticism of the White Paper is that it seems to repeat the Budd report's obsession with the idea that, because machine gambling is repetitive, it is more likely to cause problem gambling and compulsive behaviour than any other form of gambling. Although there is a lot of speculation to that effect, I have seen no objective evidence. According to Gamcare's own figures, it received just 375 genuine calls relating to the playing of pub machines, even though there are some 6.9 million people who play such machines. I am not suggesting that people do not occasionally develop gambling problems as a result of playing such machines, but there is no evidence that they are more likely to lead to problems than any other form of gambling. The notion that machines are somehow more dangerous than other forms of gambling perfuses the Government's response to the Budd report, but I do not buy it.
	Nevertheless, congratulations are due to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has sifted out the bulk of the barmy bits in the Budd report relating to the seaside industry. The industry breathed a huge sigh of relief when the White Paper was published, because it could see a future for itself once again. Its only remaining concerns—they may seem minor in the scheme of things, but it considers them immensely important—have already been touched on. According to the White Paper, category D machines are to be kept indefinitely at the 10p stake, £5 prize limit. Although my right hon. Friend has not said that he wants such machines to become uneconomic, wither away and die, that is what those involved in the Budd report have said in the press. Indeed, that was their intention in suggesting that the stake be frozen.
	I do not accept that proposal in any way, and nor does the industry: it is not a valid objective. I do not want to be too harsh, but I find it slightly dishonest that that was not spelled out in the report. If the withering away of such machines is indeed the objective, the report should say as much. Those involved in the report should not present an idea, and explain the real motive behind it only afterwards in the press.
	The machines are an important component of the seaside arcade. They are harmless fun, nothing more. We should allow the stake and prize—10p and £5—to be reviewed periodically. It may not have to be done that frequently. I should like it to be undertaken every three years, as currently happens. The gambling commission should do it when it reviews the other stakes. We should say explicitly that our motivation is not the disappearance of the machines, which are an important part of seaside businesses.
	Let us consider cranes. A decent quality fluffy toy has to cost at least £5 or more. Simply getting a safety certificate for the toy costs money.

Gordon Marsden: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that having a more expensive fluffy toy would be an incentive for people in the arcades to buy domestically manufactured items, which comply with British safety standards, not cheaper, imported toys that do not?

Stephen Ladyman: I agree. We must ensure that the prizes are of decent quality. Restricting the stake and the value of the prize means changing the machines so that people cannot win as often. That is the only way in which to make the machine pay. We would therefore be kidding our children; we would effectively be saying that we will pass a law that makes it more difficult for our kids to win a fluffy toy. That is not Labour policy, but the policy of other political parties. My right hon. Friend the Minister, who is loved by children everywhere for saving their seaside arcades, will be praised to the hilt if he ensures that such a law is not passed.
	I represent a seaside constituency, and gambling is an important part of what we offer. Furthermore, the cranes in seaside arcades are made in my constituency, as are the pusher machines, in the tops of which people insert a coin so that a little paddle knocks some coins off the shelf. Excellent businesses in my constituency maintain and supply the machines. Apart from the casino and our seaside arcades, we have a range of betting shops and other gambling activities.
	Gambling is an intrinsic part of the seaside offering to our visitors. Hundreds of my constituents rely on work associated with the machines for their livelihoods. We cannot simply tamper with them thoughtlessly. My right hon. Friend appreciates that, hence his dramatic changes to the Budd recommendations. If he takes note of my points about the prize machines and the proposed 10p stake, £5 prize category D machines, he will gain our thanks for taking that small extra step towards ensuring that the seaside in this country continues to be viable and a home for our children.
	When I take my little girl, who is eight, on holiday, she loves running around seaside arcades with a handful of coins to play the pusher machines. I have said it before and I shall say it again: if she develops a gambling problem later in life, it will not be due to a couple of happy hours in Torquay or Ramsgate playing on the machines. Our legislation should reflect that reality.

Eric Joyce: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on pyramid selling schemes. We all receive letters about that, and she has led a campaign on it for some time, with some success. She appeared on television this morning to speak about it, and I could not agree more with her.
	From listening to the other speeches, I realise that I arrived here uneducated in some of life's realities. My father never called himself Lucifer, I have not done anything ropy with a fluffy toy since I was very small, and I had never been in a betting shop. Shortly before I was elected, however, I was invited into Ladbrokes; I discovered just how important these establishments are and had to reappraise my view of the industry.
	The Budd report's recommendations made me seek to learn a great deal more about the industry. Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I received an enormous number of letters from clubs, not all co-ordinated in the first instance, particularly about gaming machines in clubs. That made me find out more about the industry in general, the Government's modernisation of it and the role of the members' clubs that play such a vital role in our communities.
	A modern regulatory framework for the gambling industry is essential. As the Budd report and the Minister have both said, gambling law is severely outdated. It was formed in a different age and desperately needs modernising to take new social mores and economic realities into account. Gambling is no longer a marginal moral activity, and we have to allow the gambling industry to compete properly and fairly in the global market. That means being able to respond to new developments such as the internet, new technology and new economic assumptions such as competition from overseas lotteries. At the same time, gambling must be conducted fairly and remain free of criminal influence, which has itself influenced legislation in this area until now.
	The broad shape of the Budd recommendations was about right, with managed relaxation of outmoded restrictions leading to extension of choice for adult gamblers but balanced by the need to protect children and vulnerable adults. Crucially, however, the Government did not accept the Budd recommendation that members' clubs should lose their entitlement to what have been described as category B gaming machines. The report effectively said that they should have only category C machines, which would provide the clubs with less revenue. That recognises that well-run clubs should be able to continue to benefit from the revenue streams that category B machines can offer in return for the appropriate siting of machines, protection of children from machines within the premises and openness to the same kind of regulation that other premises with similar machines have.
	The Government's decision was very welcome and came after much anguish had been expressed by members' clubs across the country. It was finely attuned to the principles of the Budd review and to the vital role that members' clubs play in all our constituencies. There are many such clubs in my constituency. In addition to many sports, bowling and golf clubs in Falkirk, West—although there are no cricket clubs—we have two Polish clubs, and many of my constituents are members of the Royal British Legion. My constituency has the unique honour of having three senior football clubs, which have varying results, in addition to two junior football clubs, which rely heavily on their associated social clubs to keep them afloat.
	These clubs offer much appreciated social services to their respective communities. I belong to the Camelon Labour club.

Richard Caborn: A very fine club.

Eric Joyce: Indeed, it is the finest Labour club in Falkirk and one of the best in Scotland, if not Britain.
	The club has the benevolent effects of a well-run members' club, not only for its members but its community. The Camelon club serves as a fine example of the kind of institution that will benefit from the Government's decision on category B gaming machines. It was founded 40 years ago by a small group of far-sighted and community-spirited local people in an area where little social provision existed. Their achievement has endured to become one of the most valuable community-binding institutions in my constituency.
	It is a matter of great pride to all members of the club that, because it is extremely well run and well patronised, it is able to contribute to many local charities and ventures that, in effect, define the community. The Camelon gala day is the village's largest community event every year; almost everybody attends it.
	Recently, after a break-in at a local church, the club was able to help by providing alarms for all the churches and their community halls. Of course, it is sad that we have to put alarms in churches and halls, but they contain valuables and without the alarms the break-ins would have continued. The club's act was extremely helpful.
	The club was able to use its operating surplus. I realise that not all members' clubs have a substantial surplus, but when they do I suspect that they often spend that money on good local charitable causes. It is especially gratifying to see benevolence with a community purpose in action in my constituency.
	The Government's decision on category B gaming machines did not mean the difference between life and death for clubs which have a healthy surplus, such as the Camelon, although it helped the club to continue with its community work and charitable efforts. However, for some clubs, such as the two Polish clubs in my constituency, the machines provide crucial marginal revenue that keeps them afloat. Last year, the Ochiltree club had to close and had to cancel a Christmas lunch for pensioners. That was very sad, although another club took up the event, and the Ochiltree club will be greatly missed. As a result of the Government's decision, many such clubs will be able to remain open.
	The debate is important because it flags up how we can modernise a major industry for the social and economic realities of the 21st century, while protecting some of the best traditions of the 20th. Community-minded members' clubs represent one of those traditions, and I speak for the clubs in my constituency when I say that the Government's approach to modernising the gambling industry, especially their decision to keep category B machines in clubs, has helped to secure the future of many clubs for some years to come.

Gareth Thomas: Until recently, I always approached gambling from my position as a member of the Methodist Church with a healthy scepticism as to the merits of hard gambling in particular. That might make the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) classify me as a roundhead, although I am sure that the whole House will agree that the description "repulsive" is entirely inappropriate.
	The debate is topical. It takes place after the World cup, which was the biggest-ever betting event. Only yesterday, I was told that I could have turned about £10 into £330 if I had bet—with Ladbrokes—that Brazil would win the cup and that Ronaldo would be the top scorer. Patriotically, of course, I backed England and have learned my lesson. In future, I shall bet only on surefire certs, so I shall back Wales to win the Six Nations tournament.
	About £200 million was spent on betting on the World cup, which shows how popular betting on football has become. It is a far cry from the 1960s when smoke-filled betting shops catered mainly for punters interested in horse racing. Nowadays, betting customers have much wider interests: from the performance of the Senegal football team to the traditional performance of Duty Whip's Fancy in the 3.30 at Doncaster. Internet and telephone betting probably accounted for about £100 million of the World cup betting.
	We are witnessing a radical change in the way that customers gamble in our society, so it is right that the Government embark on modernising the gambling laws. That is right, too, because of the crucial importance of gambling to our economy: more than 125,000 jobs and more than £1 billion in taxation cannot be ignored.
	As hon. Members have rightly highlighted, gambling is also a key contributor to community life. The 8,000-plus betting shops throughout the country help to generate the footfall to support other key shopping outlets in district centres. Fruit machines are crucial to the running and income of local clubs. The bingo club traditionally provided a source of entertainment, which my grandparents certainly continue to celebrate with enthusiasm. More recently, the queue in the local newsagent for the last-minute lottery ticket on Saturday night has become a regular feature of life.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) for his excellent judgment in making one of his first priorities after his election a visit to Ladbrokes. Ladbroke Racing Ltd. has its headquarters in my constituency and employs some 1,000 staff nationally. It sits in Rayners Lane, a key district centre that could not support the various other outlets there without it.
	I had always made it a rule never to predict the outcome of elections. That was until the last general election, when Ladbrokes persuaded me and my Conservative opponent to engage in a charity bet. I am delighted that, thanks to the good judgment of my constituents, some £400 went to the excellent Headstone Manor football club. The unkind had suggested that my opponent actually got the better deal. He—one Daniel Finkelstein—now writes for The Times, commenting on the performance of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at Question Time. I must get in touch with him, because I do not think that he does justice to the performance of the Prime Minister.
	There have already been several sensible reforms of the management of the gambling industry. I think, for example, of the replacement of betting duty with the gross profits tax. That has facilitated the return to the United Kingdom of all the major gambling companies' offshore internet and telephone gambling businesses. In my constituency, that has meant that Ladbroke's has been able to create an extra 125 jobs, opening up, for example, a new telephone betting service.
	I hope that I can encourage hon. Members to take advantage of that service. They might want to join me in backing the excellent Harrow Borough football club to win the Rymans premier league next season. They might want to join intelligent football fans across the United Kingdom and back Arsenal to do the double again, or perhaps if they were very shrewd they might want to join me in backing Kate to win "Big Brother" this time round.
	In general I welcome the Government's response to the Budd report. I consider that, as hon. Members have said, the law has become badly out of date, but adults are entitled to much greater choice and we need to recognise that gambling is part and parcel of modern recreation and leisure. The proposals in "A safe bet for success" put in place additional safeguards against problem gambling and, crucially, to keep the industry crime-free.
	I welcome the Government's proposals, which other hon. Members have mentioned, to draw a clear distinction between gambling and the use of amusement machines. I welcome their rejection of the proposal to remove from members' clubs the right to operate jackpot machines—a measure that, as was rightly said, would have threatened the income of many clubs that are at the heart of local community life. I think of clubs in my constituency such as the excellent United Services club in Pinner, which organises the only Remembrance day service in Pinner and a variety of other social events. It would have been very hard hit if the Government had not shown their good judgment once again by not accepting that proposal from the Budd report.
	The gambling review and "A safe bet for success" highlighted several issues on which additional clarity in my right hon. Friend's reply would be useful. The Budd report underlined important gambling problems and the dangers of under-age gambling. It is worth restating that report's conclusion—this is perhaps not rocket science, but it is nevertheless important—that increasing the availability of gambling will lead to an increase in the prevalence of problem gambling. I hope that that conclusion will turn out to be wrong.
	We certainly appear to be in the fortunate position that the number of problem gamblers in the United Kingdom is much lower than in other countries, but it is estimated that there are 275,000 to 370,000 in this country, so there are no grounds for complacency, not least because of the terrible impacts on individuals and their families that problem gambling brings. Unhappiness, depression, divorce and attempted suicide are all significantly greater for problem gamblers than for those in wider society.
	Of course we need to recognise that problem gambling has an economic impact. Further research is necessary into the cost to our nation of problem gambling. The Budd report stated that, in the United Kingdom, it costs some £100 million according to the lowest estimate. In the worst-case scenario, the cost might be some £13 billion. Retrospective studies have shown that adults who are problem gamblers are significantly more likely to have started gambling in their childhood or adolescence and to have a parent who was a problem gambler.
	Worryingly, too, the Budd review noted that the proportion of problem gamblers among adolescents in Britain could be as much as more than three times that of adults, but perhaps the most worrying submission that the Budd report chose to highlight was that from Gamblers Anonymous, which said in its evidence to the review that it had noticed a rise in the number of adolescents being brought along to its meetings by parents because they had a serious gambling problem.
	The Budd report also makes it clear that, despite the excellent work of Gamcare and Gamblers Anonymous and the responsible attitude of the vast bulk of the gambling industry, much more needs to be done to tackle problem gambling. It highlights the fact that there is little research into the nature of problem gambling, that there are too few initiatives to treat and support problem gamblers, that little is known about the relative effectiveness of possible treatments and that little funding is in place to tackle it.
	The Government and the industry were right to support the recommendation to establish a charitable trust to promote research into problem gambling. The industry deserves some praise for already delivering £800,000 in annual funding to the trust, but it is worth noting that the Budd review recommended a £3 million annual budget for the first three years. The Government should certainly retain a reserve power to secure the funding of that trust, and I welcome the acceptance of that recommendation.
	The Government, the charitable trust and the wider industry need to tell us soon what progress they are making on problem gambling. It would be useful to know whether further cross-departmental work on problem gambling will take place between, for example, officials in the Department of Health and those in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We need to hear that new services to support problem gamblers will be developed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give us some clues to how the Government will make progress on that issue.
	A key role for the gambling commission will be to continue to promote the highest standards of social responsibility by the industry. I hope that the Government will consider requiring at least one board member of the gambling commission to have a particular responsibility for problem gambling, and that the commission might be required to publish annually what it is doing to address, and keep aware of, problem gambling. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made the interesting suggestion of a shadow commission. I would support that being considered, and perhaps such a commission could examine early on the development of further work on problem gambling.
	Were there any doubt about the need for social responsibility, not just from the majority of the industry but all of it, the BBC programme, "Kenyon Confronts", as I outlined in my intervention, offers confirmation of it. The programme focused on the establishment of betting exchanges, which, in effect, allow ordinary customers to act like bookmakers by taking bets on, for instance, horses, without a licence, from other ordinary customers. That is a recipe for all sorts of problems. For example, an innocent customer who uses the exchange does not even know whether they are betting with a race horse owner, who may already know that his horse cannot win a race or will have to be withdrawn. Every other form of organised gambling requires the bookmaker to be licensed, to prevent crime and corruption and to uphold the honesty and integrity of the British gambling industry. We need to consider urgently how we can close that loophole.
	One of the other recommendations that concerns me is on the development of new casinos. In general, I support the deregulation of the law on casinos, the abolition of the 24-hour rule and the abolition of the ban on advertising, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) indicated, is entirely sensible. We must consider very carefully, however, the proposal to build casinos of just 2,000 sq ft. I am concerned that that could lead to a proliferation of casinos on the high street if the local licensing authorities were so minded. We need to bear it in mind that, under some of the new proposed powers, casinos will be able to offer customers considerably greater gambling services than they have done previously. Such an offering, were it available on the high street, would radically alter the fabric of the high street as we know it, and would not help to tackle problem gambling. A figure of 2,000 sq ft is too small, and should be increased significantly. The idea of my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) that there could be a particular designation in planning law for casinos may also help to tackle this problem. We need to recognise, however, that, in urban areas, 2,000 sq ft is far too small.
	On balance, the Government's decision not to allow side-betting on the lottery was right. That needs to be kept under close review, however, as, in some countries that allow side-betting on their lotteries, it does not appear to have significantly affected lottery receipts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Ryedale flagged up, Camelot seems already to have moved down that route with its Hot Picks game. Interestingly, Camelot believes that such side-betting would not affect the lottery, but it has so far refused to publish its research.
	The Government's acceptance of most of the recommendations in the Budd report is entirely sensible. My concern is about the detail of some of the recommendations, such as that for a limit of 2,000 sq ft, and I also have concerns about betting exchanges. I also hope that we shall hear more soon from the Government and the industry about how to deal with problem gambling.
	I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to the House. Because of other commitments, I have to head back to my constituency, so I will not be able to hear all his remarks.

Richard Caborn: I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. From my point of view and that of my officials, it has been extremely helpful. As I said earlier, we are in the process of consulting and the debate will help us to refine our proposals before we start to draft the legislation.
	The Budd report and the Government's response to it have underlined the approach that will be taken, and we will consider the submissions to the consultation. In the 1960s, the industry was used by the criminal fraternity for all sorts of reasons, particularly the laundering of money. Restrictive legislation and heavy regulation were then imposed and out of that came a transparent industry that had a tremendous amount of credibility. We do not want to lose that credibility because, if we do, it will be a lose-lose situation. Given the modern setting of the 21st century and the public's perception of the changing culture of gambling, if we can legislate to maintain a transparent industry that has the integrity on which people can rely, we will have a win-win situation for the industry.
	As I said, this is a big industry. More than 100,000 people are already employed in it, and it could be used to encourage tourism and to assist regeneration if we manage the changes effectively. Change has not taken place in that way in some countries. Australia deregulated and then found it very difficult to reimpose controls. Therefore, we are taking a cautious approach to managing the modernisation of the industry.
	Some themes were common to many of the contributions to the debate. My officials will study Hansard and, if I miss any points, I hope that they will respond. We are more than willing to try to give answers.
	Several hon. Members raised the idea of a shadow commission. The Gaming Board has put several suggestions to us about how we can create some form of shadow commission. I support the idea, because uncertainty in industry can be very costly. Commerce and finance may not invest in an industry until there is some certainty. If people believe that they are dealing with a shadow commission that will make decisions in the future, they are more likely to move the agenda on investment forward. The basic principle is that uncertainty is normally very costly so, if we can remove it, we should do so. The concept of a shadow commission is therefore right. However, we shall have to wait a little before we decide exactly how we will move forward. None the less, I certainly do not dismiss the idea. If anything, I support it.
	The role of local authorities in regenerating communities and developing their economies has been mentioned. We believe that making licensing the responsibility of local authorities and thereby linking it to land use, transport planning and regeneration is right. Given that local authorities are not subject to the departmentalisation of 10, 15 or 20 years ago, I think that that move is absolutely correct. It has the bonus, too, of bringing licensing under some democratic control. It is important when making any change to take communities with us. If we do not do so, there might be a backlash and unfortunate things could happen. We therefore decided to link gambling licensing with land-use planning, which is already under local authority control, and liquor licensing, which is about to come under local authority control. We think that that is the way to move forward. To use the jargon, a little bit of joined-up government does no harm.
	With regard to crane machines, the Government tried in their response to the Budd report to draw a clear distinction between amusement on one hand, and gambling and gaming on the other. We did so by setting the 10p and £5 levels under category D. Those maximums are not set in tablets of stone. We just wanted to reassure the House and all those who made representations that, should we want to change those levels, it must be done by decree of this House—not by a commission, a quango or anybody else.
	The argument about licensed members' clubs and the £250 jackpot—Budd was concerned about this—was predicated on the fear of children playing the machines. If there is such a danger—I do not think that there is—we must ensure that steps are taken to distinguish between amusement and gaming and gambling.
	We had to consider, bearing in mind crane machines, whether a 10p price and £5 or a fluffy toy as a prize should be considered gambling. Should that be in a separate category, as a number of hon. Members have argued? I have told the industry, in response to its representations on crane machines and the 30p and £8 limits, that we will reflect on the matter, but I want to make it clear to the House why we have come to our decision. We have taken on board what Budd said and borne in mind public concern about young children gaming. Amusement is one thing, gambling is another.
	We rejected Budd's proposal on the amount of time after which the matter should be reviewed. The House will remember that the report suggested a review of the issue of slot machines, but that led to tremendous uncertainty in the industry. We have therefore given the reassurance that if the 10p and £5 limits change, it will be as a result only of a decision by this House, and it will be backed up by research.
	A theme of many speeches has been whether we really know what effect such things have on children. The honest answer is no. We must therefore conduct research to find out exactly what effect, if any, gambling or playing the slots for £5 prizes might have on children. In summary, we want, first, to engender certainty; secondly, to reassure the public; and thirdly, to research cause and effect.

Boris Johnson: I am still not quite sure from the Minister's explanation whether he thinks that crane machines constitute amusement or gambling, and whether he believes that children will be lured into gambling more merely by the prospect of winning a fluffy dog worth £8 rather than £5. I still do not understand the logic behind the reduction.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Our position on amusement is clear: it falls within the financial limit of 10p and £5. If we allow the 30p and £8 prize to be introduced, those who want the machines to be removed will argue that we have created two categories for amusement of 10p and £5 and 30p and £8. We have rejected the 30p and £8 prize. We need that proposal to be researched because people are concerned about children gambling. The hon. Gentleman might not accept that argument, but as a Minister I have to reflect on the 5,000 contributions to the Budd inquiry and the consultation. We do not dismiss those lightly. We have gone a long way to meet the industry's concerns, especially those voiced by the resorts, by rejecting the Budd report recommendation. However, we will manage change so that we reassure the general public and do not unduly alarm the industry.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful for the Minister's comments on crane machines. I would not have expected anything more at this stage. However, it would be easy to create a different category for them, because people play them to win a prize. As they do not win cash, a distinction can be drawn.
	On the 10p and £5 category, I understand why the House needs to consider that, but will my right hon. Friend reflect on the possibility of instructing the new gambling commission to consider the level, say, every three years, and make a recommendation to Ministers so that the industry knows that it is under review?

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend misses the more important point. We want to know whether there is a cause and effect aspect to gambling, but we do not want to put the cart before the horse. I want to put in train research so that we can prove or disprove that. It is important to do that so that we reassure those members of the general public who are worried about the link between the machines and problem gambling. We want sound findings on that, which can be achieved only through sound research. We have distinguished between amusement and gambling: amusement is for children; gambling is for adults. It will be for the House to decide whether we move away from that principle.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and others were worried about protecting the lottery. We have taken the political decision to protect it and have given our reasons for that. I accept that if we protect the lottery, which is a monopoly, it has to take its responsibilities seriously. We have a choice: if we release the lottery on to the marketplace, do we let the marketplace participate in the lottery? Camelot wrote to us outlining the damage that that would do.
	We want to be fair. If we protect the lottery, which some would call an institution, it must take its responsibilities seriously because it is in a privileged position. It is a monopoly within the sea of competition, and we need clear dividing lines. I heard what hon. Members said about the new product that it is bringing on to the marketplace and realise that they are concerned that that could overstep the mark. The advice that I have received is that that will not happen, but I take the general principle that the lottery must respect the fact that it is in a privileged position and not move into other areas.
	I hope that the trust will carry out the necessary research. The industry knows what Budd said and the £3 million that we want to raise. The trust marks an important commitment by the industry to take its responsibilities seriously. If the money is not raised over a period of time, we have reserved powers to introduce legislation to ensure that it is. We will work out a formula to determine how that can be fairly raised across the industry.
	We are in contact with the Department of Health regarding the development and composition of the trust. It must be independent, and we are striving to achieve that, and it must take account of the various constituencies that will be affected by gambling deregulation. We are giving that matter comprehensive consideration, and I hope that we will be able to make further announcements in the near future.
	I take on board the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) about the need for legislation. The present consultation process does not debar consideration of the type of product to which she referred, and I shall closely examine any submissions made on the subject. There is a general feeling in the House that such schemes are neither investment nor gambling; they are a complete rip-off and a sham, and therefore unacceptable. My hon. Friend graphically described the way in which the matter has been knocking about between two Departments, and that is also unacceptable. I assure her that we will consider the issue very carefully.
	During the break from the debate between 11 and 11.45 am, when a statement was made to the House, I asked my officials to give me a definition of "gambling". They said that they are still trying to arrive at a definition. If my hon. Friend's question is to be answered and if we are to legislate effectively, we need clear definitions of the terms involved, so I assure her that we will consider the matter. I hope that she will respond to the consultation document.

Anne Begg: I am very pleased with what the Minister has said, particularly his assurance that one Department will take responsibility for the issue that I raised. I hope that we will be able to come up with a definition, although it will be difficult, so that we can legislate not only on schemes such as Women Empowering Women but on the whole range of such scams, which are outrageous and must be outlawed. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his response.

Richard Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks.
	We believe that we have conceded every point, including the one about doubling the roll-over, made by society lotteries in their submission to the Select Committee. We believe that our actions will not damage the national lottery. If lotteries are to serve their useful purpose for good causes, we must strike a balance. There is no doubt that society lotteries do an tremendous amount of good, and that is why we regulated to allow them to move in the direction that they wanted.
	I turn now to the development of resort casinos and to whether there needs to be apportionment in that process. My Department has received, and continues to receive, many representations about the matter. Local authorities now have many planning powers, and the gambling commission will also have such powers, so it will be possible to make sure that such development takes place.
	The problem is that we are not beginning with a clean sheet. There are already 120 casinos operating in this country, so it will be extremely difficult to apportion development opportunities. The Department has received several representations on the subject, and I am prepared to revisit it. However, we will take a lot of convincing to move away from the position set out in the White Paper and the consultation document. We have gone a long way towards assisting development, which is very important to Blackpool and other areas, and we are introducing other measures, such as hypothecation in the business improvement tax, which is the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	There is also the question of land use planning. If we bring all the factors together, we can involve the private sector and, at the end of the day, there will be a judgment as to whether the private sector wants to get involved. Putting in pilot schemes and giving special favours to certain areas is a dangerous course to follow. We have not closed the door on that issue and we are prepared to listen, but we would want some persuading before we moved away from the position in the White Paper.

Gordon Marsden: I well understand the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Minister expressed on pilots, but will he reflect on the fact that an advantage of the pilot is not necessarily that it confers a commercial advantage on one particular resort casino, but that it enables various issues and concerns to be trialled and met before the scheme is rolled out generally?

Richard Caborn: I understand that argument, but there is also the question of special pleading. One must be careful in achieving a balance and in making changes in legislation. There is special pleading from the casinos and from others who want to protect their current position. If we look at previous legislation, we find that it was restrictive and gave some people comfortable and privileged positions for a good number of years. People tend to defend privileged positions very strongly and there are vested interests to take into account.
	It would be difficult to justify pilot schemes, even by the criteria that my hon. Friend has put forward eloquently. I am bound to say that, to some extent, that falls into the category of special pleading. Nevertheless, we will revisit this matter and we are open to discussion. However, we would want some convincing before moving from the position as set out in the White Paper.
	My officials will look at Hansard and if there are points that I have not dealt with, I will come back to them. If we have not done so in the next two or three weeks, hon. Members should contact my Department for full answers to their questions.

Jim Murphy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NURSING TRAINING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Vera Baird: At the last election, we pledged that 20,000 nurses would be recruited to the national health service by 2004. The biggest constraint, we said, facing the NHS was no longer financial resources but human resources. Consequently, the Government have since deployed a highly successful recruitment campaign to get new nurses into the NHS.
	At Redcar and Cleveland college in my constituency, there is an access to nursing course. It is an intensive course, and takes a year. Successful students receive a level 3 qualification, enabling them to seek university experience. Redcar and Cleveland is a highly successful college, and led by its respected principal, Mr. Old, it has concentrated efforts on widening access to further and higher eduction.
	The Redcar constituency is in Teesside and suffered for generations from post-industrial decay, inner-urban poverty and social deprivation. It has the well recognised health inequalities that go with that total picture. Unemployment is 7.6 per cent., or more than twice the national average. Clearly, Mr. Old and the college's efforts, and those of his staff in widening access, are particularly appropriate.
	Last year many people who enrolled in the access to nursing course were women over 21, and many were single parents. They were benefiting from the new deal for single parents, which was aimed at getting exactly this target group into work. Their tuition fees are paid, as are their fares. They get some extra benefit and a book allowance.
	In addition, such students make the most enormous personal effort. Many of them have been out of education for a decade. Many did not do particularly well or make much effort when they were at school. They will not have seen themselves as studious, nor even, in Redcar, as people who would ever have a job, let alone a profession. Many will have started the course with real excitement but with real doubt as to whether they could make it. If they had children, they had to juggle the role of parents with entry into the unfamiliar and daunting world of study.
	The college is good at student support, and 36 students passed. Historically, 80 per cent. of the successful students on Redcar and Cleveland's nursing course have gone on to complete their nursing training, principally on the nursing courses at Teesside university. This year, only five of the 36 got a university place to carry on their training to become nurses. There are universities further afield, but there are at least 50 miles to travel in each direction, and the Redcar and Cleveland college intake mainly comprises people who need to study locally because of family commitments. As part of the "making a difference" programme, the courses at Teesside university were designed to be exceptionally family friendly. Its nursing diploma and degree courses are very good and highly sought after; they are graded "excellent in quality" by the Department of Health.
	The university allocates places by setting selection interview criteria and offering a place to each person who passes—it does not cherry-pick the stars. I am assured by the university that the reason for Redcar and Cleveland college's low admission rate was not the quality of this year's applicants—the problem is that there are not nearly enough places, because it is massively oversubscribed. This year, there are 401 places for which there were 1,740 applications.
	Oddly, in the context of the continuing campaign for nursing recruitment, the university was given no extra funding this year to increase its number of places. There are 401 places on the nursing training course this year, just as there were last year. Both the director and the deputy director of the school of health and social care tell me that although they have to be innovative with clinical placements, they could never take all the applicants—but they could increase their places by another 50 a year. It is startling that funding for expansion of this high-quality course, in an area of highly successful recruitment of a target group into training, in a place of high unemployment with a shortage of nurses, has just stopped.
	Health care assistants are an excellent source of recruitment to nursing. As trust employees, they already have a good insight into the role of the nurse, so wastage is very low. Often, the employee does the practical part of their training with the home trust, so the local rewards are reaped early in the training process and the benefit is likely to be permanent. Tracey Christon is a health care assistant. She is a 28-year-old Redcar resident, a single parent with one little girl. She has worked at East Cleveland community hospital for 10 years. She is very good, and almost as soon as she went there her ward manager told her that she would make a good nurse. Tracey felt too young at 18 to be sure what she wanted to do, but by three years ago she had decided. She studied for national vocational qualifications and quickly got to level 3. She was rightly encouraged, in all good faith, by her ward manager and by Lanbaurgh primary care trust, her employer. She was told that if she got a place at university, she could be seconded on her salary to train, then come back to work as a nurse.
	This year, Tracey got a place at Teesside university on the nursing diploma course. But four health care assistants applied for secondment from Lanbaurgh PCT, and only two secondments were available. Tracey was not offered a secondment. Neither was another applicant, not a constituent of mine, but no doubt just as distressed, feeling just as rejected and feeling, too, that the whole nursing recruitment campaign had misled them. The chief executive of the Lanbaurgh PCT tells me that if he could have four secondments, he would definitely want them. He clearly has faith that all four of his employees should be advancing their careers exactly as they wish.
	In Middlesbrough and Eston PCT, the other PCT in my constituency, there is an urgent need for practice nurses for GP practices. There are eight secondments for those in Tees this year. The area has at least three PCTs. The chief executive of the Middlesbrough trust tells me that he would like to have all eight for his own trust, so critical is the need for practice nursing training.
	Teesside has a shortage of nurses. It is an acute problem because, as I have said, in common with other socially deprived areas, it has considerable health inequalities. As at 30 March, the South Tees trust had whole-time equivalent vacancies of 50.6 nurses. Tees and North Yorkshire, which has been succeeded, save for the mental health functions of the two local PCTs that I have mentioned, has 27.2 whole-time vacancies. North Tees and Hartlepool and its PCT have 54.9 in total. That excludes all the nursing care in nursing homes and the whole of the independent sector.
	Further—I think that this is commonplace—in particular in district and community care nursing, nurses are ageing. There is an estimate from the Royal College of Nursing that nationally a quarter of these nurses are due to retire in the next five years. I do not have any local figures for that.
	South Tees has recently carried out a successful recruitment drive and brought 12 Spanish nurses over to work. Hartlepool has recruited some nurses from the Philippines. I appreciate the difference between recruiting qualified nurses for remedial work and recruiting for training. The university deputy director of the health and social care school tells me that it will continue to fail to meet local targets for training and recruitment if it does not recruit overseas.
	I have no criticism of overseas nurses. If I have the good fortune to come across any of the new Spanish people who have moved into Redcar, I shall no doubt drive them out with my appalling south American Spanish. I shall try to persuade them to offer me paella. They will add real interest to the Teesside culture. However, we have high local unemployment. The context of a group of local people who are desperate to become nurses, of many nursing places that we are desperate to have filled, of insufficient funding for university places and insufficient secondments for health care assistance, suggests that some cogs are coming loose or even falling off the wheel of the machine in my area.
	The County Durham and Tees Valley workforce development confederation plans the work force needs and supplies and commissions the education and training for all the health trusts in its area. I have spoken to two people from the confederation. They tell me that the transition from the old trusts to the new may have meant that historical data on demand for secondments have been mismatched. They say that the confederation has been a victim of its own success in recruiting among health care assistants. They say that all the health care assistant secondments in the confederation's area have already been taken up. They say that they will respond by looking elsewhere in the budget to see whether they can help Ms Christon.
	The two representatives say that the confederation needs to become more sophisticated in meeting the demand. They say also that overall the confederation is meeting its targets, but they appreciate that there are areas in which that is not happening quickly enough. They make it plain that they too are working within a budget and have limited room for manoeuvre.
	I am grateful to have received briefings after obtaining this debate from the RCN and from Unison, the health care assistants union, and also for the information that I have quoted which was given me by all the health care stakeholders to which I have referred.
	I am not in a position to define whether the problem, and it is a local one, is one of too few resources or of inaccurate targeting. I do not know whether it is both or neither. However, I ask the Minister to give attention to this issue. There are a number of people in my constituency who have been thwarted in their ambition to serve the community in which they live as qualified nurses. They have been led to believe by our recruitment campaign that they are needed. My research has made it clear to me that these people are needed to maintain the high quality of health care on Teesside.

Hazel Blears: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on raising an extremely important issue, not only in her area but for all communities that are trying to ensure that the extra resources for the national health service are spent wisely and well in recruiting the extra staff that we need to deliver services to those whom we represent.
	As my hon. and learned Friend said, funding for the NHS is improving at a remarkable rate. The problem facing us is not money to deliver improved services, but the capacity of the work force. That is not only nurses but doctors, therapists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists—the entire range of professions that work in the NHS. All of them are under tremendous pressure, mainly as a result of the cuts in training places that have taken place over the past 10 years and longer. We are now trying to catch up as rapidly as we can, by expanding the number of available training places.
	It is clear that to deliver the services that patients and the public rightly demand, we must be focused about where we spend the extra money—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Hazel Blears: We have to be sure that the extra resources available for the NHS are spent in a way that delivers real tangible improvements on the ground. I entirely acknowledge that one of the key challenges that we face is the shortage of staff. If we do not have enough staff we cannot provide the services that we want, and we shall not meet our targets.
	The NHS plan has set some pretty demanding targets for increasing the number of professionals working in the service. I am pleased to say that the nursing target has been met ahead of schedule, and the numbers of doctors and therapists are increasing. There are over 30,000 more nurses working in the NHS today than there were in 1997. But we know that that is not nearly enough. Our latest projection is that there will be at least 35,000 more nurses in 2008 than there are today. We set targets in the NHS plan, but we have already met those and we are now pushing on with further increases.
	It is therefore crucial that we also set targets for increasing the number of training places for students. Meeting those targets is the key to delivering the longer-term sustained growth that the system really needs.
	There is more to this than just increasing the number of training places. We are also investing in "return to practice" initiatives, and trying to make the NHS a better employer. Every member of staff in the NHS is entitled to work for an organisation that is genuinely committed to flexible working conditions. We have already invested in child care provision to enable parents of younger children to remain in work or return to practice, and between February 1999 and March this year more than 11,200 nurses returned to practice, in addition to the new recruits that my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned.
	It is worth comparing the position with that in 1997, when the number of training places for nurses had been cut, and there were fewer than 15,000 left. The shortage of nurses on the wards in many parts of the community today is in no small part the result of the short-sighted policies pursued in the early 1990s. There were too few places, and not enough people wanted to go into nursing, either. There was a real recruitment problem.
	The NHS plan target is that by 2004, 5,500 more nurses and midwives will enter training each year than did so in 1999. Achieving that target will mean that over 9,000—61 per cent.—more students will start training as nurses and midwives in 2004 than did in 1997. We have already increased numbers by more than 3,000, and we are on course to achieve the plan target.
	However, that is only the first step. We now have a commitment that by 2008, there will be 8,000 more students per year leaving training than there were last year. We are setting the service really challenging targets, and trying to ensure that we can recruit students right across the range of professions. That means that we need to be a bit more creative in our thinking about the skills and aptitudes that people need to train as nurses. In the past we have been a little too restrictive about the qualities that nurses need, and we need to try to encourage people who may not even have thought of going into the profession to do so. My hon. and learned Friend rightly talked about people in her constituency who may not have been in work at all, let alone considered themselves natural entrants to a profession such as nursing.
	We are trying to provide more flexible pathways into both nursing and midwifery education, and acknowledge that mature people have requirements different from those traditionally associated with school leavers. Access courses provide an alternative to the traditional requirement for GCSEs, and offer a second chance to people who did not achieve good results in school. Some of the new pathways are targeted at future careers in nursing, through access courses, but others are more general and allow entry to a range of higher education courses. I recently went to look at one of the courses in the sixth form college in my constituency, and there were many young people there thinking about careers as varied as social work and radiography, as well as nursing. That whole range of professions is important to us.
	My hon. and learned Friend mentioned health care support workers, who can be seconded on to nurse training courses. In such a situation, students receive the same amount of money to train as nurses as they received to work as support workers. That has proved a popular route to training. More than 6,000 people have begun training in this way since 1998, and some 2,500 new secondees are being supported each year. Alternatively, health care support workers with appropriate vocational qualifications can fast-track nurse training by missing part of the normal three-year programme, and their existing skills and competences are explicitly recognised. Such initiatives are another example of creative thinking.
	Several new schemes are being developed, including cadet schemes, which try to widen access to professional training. Cadet schemes target groups within the community that historically may have been excluded from a career in the NHS, and provide a first step on the ladder. Cadets are given the opportunity to gain work experience, and to gain the qualifications needed to enter the entire range of health professions. Cadet schemes have been extremely useful in promoting social inclusion, and in developing a work force that reflects the diversity of the local community by drawing on people who, traditionally, have not been involved in the NHS.
	There are more part-time and flexible courses, and universities are providing evening and weekend courses to cater for students with family commitments. We are developing stepping-on and stepping-off points for nurse education programmes, so that people can study at a time that suits them, and which fits in with their caring responsibilities, for example. A wide range of alternatives are now on offer, because of the desperate need to recruit to fill nursing shortages. All of those initiatives are producing very good results, and recruitment is beginning to increase dramatically. Indeed, according to my hon. and learned Friend, the university to which she referred is the victim of its own success. It is true that many more people now see a future in nursing and in the health service generally, and the challenge is to keep up with their desire to enter the service.
	However, we must recognise that, even allowing for the massive expansion in the NHS, we do not have a blank cheque. Sponsoring health care assistants is a fairly expensive way of training new nurses, costing almost twice as much as traditional recruitment routes. NHS trusts pay 20 per cent. of the cost, and the remainder is met from centrally held education and training funds. As with the rest of the NHS, hard choices sometimes have to be made about what can and cannot be funded, and about the rate at which such places can be funded. Another sponsored place for a health care assistant could mean one less place for, say, a radiographer; indeed, there is a huge shortage of qualified radiographers. Such choices always have to be made. Sponsoring health care assistants is an expensive route, but it does attract those who perhaps would not have been drawn in before.
	My hon. and learned Friend mentioned a constituent of hers who works at Langbaurgh primary care trust, and who successfully completed an access course at Redcar college. She was one of four applicants for two sponsored places at her trust, but she was unsuccessful on that occasion. I do hope that she will not be put off from pursuing her career of choice, and that she will be successful next time around. The NHS needs dedicated staff, whether they are working as health care assistants, therapists, scientists or nurses. I should point out that, although only two places were available at that PCT, just a single place was available last year. Wherever we can, we want to encourage those who have completed access courses and shown genuine good will and personal commitment. There is a career for them in the national health service, and we want them to secure their places through the system.
	My hon. and learned Friend also pointed out that the workforce development confederation commissioned only eight training places for practice nurses, and that Teesside and Middlesbrough primary care trust could have used all eight places. In fact, eight practice nurses were commissioned for Teesside and eight for Durham. The 16 places form part of 88 places that the WDC has created through its community pathways scheme. Chief executives of the trust were involved in the commissioning plans. Although I accept that my hon. and learned Friend's PCT could use many more people, there is a genuine attempt to involve the PCTs in drawing up work force plans so that they can help to shape the decisions. They have a financial stake because they have to pay the 20 per cent. secondment costs. The trusts are therefore key partners in trying to ensure that that happens.
	My hon. and learned Friend mentioned vacancy rates. In her area, they are lower than the national average and to some extent, they reflect increasing recruitment throughout the NHS. More nurses are working on the wards and vacancy rates are falling.
	There is anxiety in some areas about the ageing work force, especially health visitors, district nurses and school nurses. That is important, and the workforce development confederation needs to take account of the demographic and age distribution of the work force to try to ensure that people come through when they are needed.
	The health care assistant to which my hon. and learned Friend referred was one of 35 people who completed the access course at Redcar college and hoped to go on to take a nursing degree at Teesside university. Four people were given places, but the others were unsuccessful this time. That was due to the popularity of the course at Teesside; there are more applicants than places. The workforce development confederation is continuing its discussions with the university to ascertain whether it is possible to increase the places.
	However, we are not simply considering getting students on the courses. There are knock-on effects, including the number of lecturers, places and practical placements that the university can provide. High quality placements in the field constitute a key element of the course. They are not easy to organise and they should be viewed as part of the full picture. Increasing training capacity takes time. It is not simply a question of providing more funding, but establishing all the other elements to which I referred.
	The picture of nurse training is generally healthy, although I accept that my hon. and learned Friend has difficulties locally. The non-medical element of this year's training budget is £1.3 billion; the budget for nurse training is £850 million. It has increased by more than 75 per cent. since 1997. The County Durham and Tees Valley workforce development confederation funded 15 per cent. more nursing places this year than last year. There are 20 per cent. more sponsored places, although they are more expensive. The university offered and filled 169 places for courses starting in September and 188 for courses starting in January.
	We are now training more nurses nationally than we have done for a generation. There are more qualified nurses than ever on our wards and nurse vacancies are down. We have turned the corner, and the NHS is beginning to experience the benefit of our increased investment. However, I am the first to agree with my hon. and learned Friend that, although we have made progress, much remains to do, and we must not squander the energy, enthusiasm and the determination of people in local communities who are considering a long-term career in nursing. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the places, encouragement and financial and practical support exist, and that those people become part of the NHS work force, which will provide world-class services to people in our local communities.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Three o'clock.